Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BUNKER SUPPLIES.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any report from the committee which is considering the possibility of obtaining increased use of coal for bunkering and other cognate matters?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir.

Mr. White: Is this committee continuing its work and is it likely to report?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. George Hall: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give a list of the plants and the processes in operation for the production of oil from coal in this country, together with the amount of coal carbonised and oil produced in each process?

Captain Crookshank: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Out of a total of 85,000,000 gallons of motor spirit produced in 1936 from coal and by-products of coal, 51,000,000 gallons were obtained from several hundred gas works and coke-oven installations, at which a total of about 39,000,000 tons of coal were carbonised. Of the balance, 33⅓ million gallons were obtained at the Billingham hydrogenation plant, and in this connection, 425,000 tons of coal were used. 800,000 gallons were produced at low-temperature carbonisation plants, at which 364,000 tons of coal were carbonised. 95,000,000 gallons of heavy oils were produced, of which 89,000,000

gallons were obtained from gas works and coke ovens, and just over 6,000,000 gallons from low-temperature carbonisation plants.

Mr. Hall: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give a statement showing the countries which have oil from coal plants in operation; and the processes used, together with the amount of coal carbonised and the amount of oil produced in each country?

Captain Crookshank: Apart from this country, plants for the production of oil from coal by the hydrogenation, synthesis or low temperature carbonisation processes are understood to be operating in Germany, France, Japan and the United States of America. Oil is also produced in these and many other countries by high temperature carbonisation. I regret that no reliable information is available regarding the quantities of coal carbonised and the quantities of oil produced by the processes named in each country.

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give the information which he has at his disposal?

Captain Crookshank: As it is so unreliable, I hardly like to do that.

ACCIDENTS (THORNLEY COLLIERY, COUNTY DURHAM).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary for Mines how many fatalities have occurred in the Thornley Colliery, in Durham County, during the past 12 months; and whether any fatality or accident has been due to defects in steel props?

Captain Crookshank: During the past 12 months three fatal accidents have occurred at Thornley Colliery, but no fatality or other immediately reportable accident has been due to defects in steel props.

AUTOMATIC GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines when the committee appointed to inquire into the question of automatic gas detectors is likely to issue its report?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that the committee expect that their report will be issued by the end of February. Meanwhile they have recommended that the existing regulations relating to firedamp detectors should be continued for a further period.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the Minister say why it has taken two-and-a-quarter years or more for a report to be issued, and whether any interim report has been received?

Captain Crookshank: There has been no interim report. The hon. Member is wrong in talking about two-and-a-quarter years. It is nothing like that.

TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of coal that is being sterilised under the Team Valley Trading Estate, and the price paid to the owners per ton?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Information is not readily available as to the amount of coal sterilised under the Team Valley Trading Estate,

World Production of Crude Oil.


Millions of Statute Tons.


Country.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936 (Provisional).


U.S.A.
…
119.9
119.9
135.8
121.1
114.7
105.9
122.1
122.4
134.4
148.1


Russia
…
10.0
11.4
13.4
18.6
22.0
21.1
21.1
23.8
24.7
27.0


Venezuela
…
8.6
15.1
20.2
19.8
17.2
17.1
17.4
19.8
21.6
22.7


Roumania
…
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.7
6.6
7.2
7.3
8.3
8.3
8.6


Iran
…
5.1
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
6.4
7.1
7.5
7.5
8.2


Dutch East Indies
…
3.4
4.2
5.0
5.2
4.4
4.8
5.2
6.0
6.0
6.1


Mexico
…
9.5
7.1
6.6
5.9
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.6
6.0
5.5


Iraq
…
—
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
3.7
4.0


Colombia
…
2.1
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.3
1.8
2.4
2.4
2.6


Peru
…
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.8
2.3
2.4
2.4


Argentina
…
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.2


Other Countries
…
4.4
5.0
5.4
5.5
5.7
5.5
5.8
6.0
6.3
7.1


Total
…
169.3
178.5
203.1
193.8
187.0
178.5
196.4
207.1
225.3
244.5

PETROL (PRICE).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary for Mines the approximate present retail price of first-grade petrol per gallon in London, Paris and Berlin; and the amount of taxation in each case?

Captain Crookshank: The system of taxation in the three countries varies considerably and the types and qualities of the motor fuels used are not uniform. Subject to these qualifications, the retail price of first-grade petrol in London is 1s. 7d. per gallon, and in Paris about 1s. 10d. per gallon. In Berlin the petrol sold consists of a petrol-benzole or petrol-alcohol mixture, and it is understood that the prices of the two grades are about 3s. 2d. and 2s. 10d. per gallon

nor as to the price paid to the owners per ton. The transaction between the estate company and the owners was not specifically divided between land and coal, but endeavour was made to sterilise the smallest possible amount of coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

OIL PRODUCTION.

Mr. G. Hall: asked the Secretary for Mines the world output of oil for each of the last 10 years, with the production for each country separately?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply consists of a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

respectively. The price in London includes a tax of 8d. per gallon. So -far as it is possible to make a comparison, the amounts included in the prices in Paris and Berlin on account of taxation are about 11d. and 1s. 6d. per gallon respectively.

Mr. Day: Excluding the amount of taxation in London, is not the price of petrol here much higher than it is in any other country?

Captain Crookshank: That is a little calculation the hon. Gentleman can make when he gets the reply.

AUSTRALIA.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can


make a statement on the announcement of the Australian Government to remove restrictions on certain imports from the United States of America, and the effect of the change on the Ottawa Agreement?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have no information to add to the announcement made by His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia regarding some modifications of the arrangements which they introduced in 1936 prohibiting the importation of certain goods from foreign countries except under licence. I am sending the hon. Member particulars of these changes, which have been published in the Press. The agreement concluded at Ottawa in 1932 between the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments is not affected by the Commonwealth Government's decision.

HERRING OIL (IMPORTS).

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much oil made from herrings was imported in the years 1934, 1935, and 1936; and from what sources did it come?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I regret that the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available, as imports of oil made from herrings are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. Kirby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from manufacturers in connection with any resumption of negotiations between this country and the Irish Free State on the question of a settlement of land annuities, requesting him to consider the desirability of securing the abolition of the present tariffs on cattle feeding-stuffs manufactured in Great Britain; and what answer he has made thereto?

Mr. Stanley: I have received from the Seed, Oil, Cake and General Produce Association a copy of a resolution which they have passed on the subject. The matter is being noted for consideration in the event of any general trade negotiations taking place with the Irish Free State.

Mr. Kirby: Are negotiations actually taking place on the lines suggested by the question?

Mr. Logan: Is it not possible for a statement to be made, in regard to land annuities, that efforts towards a settlement are being made?

Mr. Stanley: Any question directed to the general point of trade negotiations should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

Mr. Logan: It is a question of the settlement of the land annuities, in regard to which these tariffs were put on, and I want to know whether it is possible to make a statement that a settlement is being considered?

AIRCRAFT EXPORTS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been issued in the last 12 months for the export of aircraft fitted with engines of 500 horse-power or more; how many aircraft engines of the same class have been exported in the same period; and whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries to which these aircraft and aircraft engines have been consigned?

Mr. Stanley: Since the 9th August, 1937, when the export of military aircraft was first made subject to the requirement of a specific licence, 19 licences have been issued for the export of aircraft fitted with engines of more than 500 horse-power per engine. As regards the last part of the question, exports of aircraft are not classified according to the horse-power of their engines, nor are exports of engines classified on this basis.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of classifying the exports of aircraft and aircraft engines by their horse-power in addition to any other classification which may be made?

Mr. Stanley: I will consider that.

ANGLO-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEME NT NEGOTIATIONS.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the negotiations for a trading agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, he will endeavour


to ensure that the interests of British shipping are adequately safeguarded?

Mr. Stanley: The necessity for safeguarding the interests of British shipping is constantly in mind, but I do not anticipate that the negotiations for a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America will embrace shipping questions.

STEEL RODS (PRICE).

Mr. R. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the raw materials whose cost contributes to the cost of production of rods for reinforced concrete work, and in what proportions do these several materials and the necessary labour contribute to the cost of production; and what were the changes in the costs of these materials or in the wages of labour which occurred between 1st January and 1st May, 1937, which justified the increase of £2 8s. per ton, or about 28 per cent., in the price of rods on the latter date?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that the cost of production of rods for reinforced concrete work depends mainly upon the cost of steel billets. The price of steel billets of tested and guaranteed quality rose by £2 per ton between the 1st January and the 1st May, 1937. Wages in this part of the industry are on a sliding scale related to prices.

WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR (IMPORT).

Mr. Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increase of, approximately, 600,000 pairs of women's footwear imported from foreign countries for the first 10 months of 1937, and that an application for increased duty has been refused to the British industry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and whether he will publish the grounds of this refusal, so that the position may be met and the application renewed in the interests of British employment?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are not required under the Import Duties Act to make a report to the Government when they refuse to make a recommendation, and I understand that it is not the practice

of the committee to publish a statement of the grounds of refusal.

Mr. Lyons: Was the application made by the British manufacturers submitted to the foreign manufacturers for their observations before the committee gave a decision, and will the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider the matter in view of the deleterious effect that these importations are having on the trade?

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of my reconsidering the matter. If the industry in question has any new facts to lay before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it is at liberty to renew its application.

Mr. Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend ask the committee to reconsider this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman says has been their practice, and will he ask them to supply the British industry with the particulars on which this refusal is based?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir; this has been the general practice ever since the committee started; it has been satisfactory and I am not prepared to vary it.

COPPER (STOCKS).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest figures in his possession of stocks of copper held in the public warehouses of the United Kingdom, and recorded by the Metal Exchange, as at the last convenient date; whether, in the event of national emergency arising, His Majesty's Government have available adequate supplies of copper; and can he state, from particulars in his Department, whether the production of copper is at present controlled by foreign interests?

Mr. Stanley: Stocks of copper in public warehouses in the United Kingdom on 4th December were 29,055 tons. The supply position of copper, as of other essential commodities, in relation to a national emergency is under constant review. There is a large production of copper within the Empire in which both British and foreign interests participate.

Mr. Day: Has the Minister any records of the quantity which is in private warehouses?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member means the amount of stock carried by manufacturers, I am afraid that I could not tell him.

UNITED STATES (PACKING STRAW).

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the reason why exporters are not permitted to use packing straw when consigning goods to America?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I have been asked to reply. Regulations have been made by the United States Government regarding the treatment of packing straw from countries declared by the United States Department of Agriculture not to be free from infection. I will have a summary of the regulations sent to the hon. Member.

SAMPLES (CUSTOMS CLEARANCE).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the considerable delay in clearing samples through the Customs; why, when these samples are of no value except for copying purposes, they are charged at the full rate of duty; and whether he will consider firstly the freeing from duty, subject to the necessary safeguards, of samples which have no value other than that stated, and also ensure that, in the interests of trade, these imports are dealt with much more quickly by the Customs staff?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am not aware of any general delay in the clearance of samples through the Customs; my hon. Friend has written to me about a particular case, and I am having inquiry made. As regards the second part of the question, there is no statutory provision under which dutiable samples could be charged with duty at less than the full rates applicable to the goods. As regards the third part, I understand that bona fide trade samples of trifling value are admitted free of duty, but I am afraid that I could not undertake to admit articles of appreciable value free of duty.

BRAZIL (BRITISH CONSULS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any complaints have been received from seamen concerning the absence of any deputies for the British consuls at Santos and Rio de Janeiro when the consuls have been absent either for health reasons or on holiday; and what arrangements are made in these ports for the transaction

of business during the absence of the consuls?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): No complaints of this nature have been received. When the senior Consular Officer at Rio de Janeiro or Santos is absent, the office is in the charge of the Vice-Consul attached to the post, who has authority to carry out all the usual duties of his office.

Mr. Gallacher: If I send to the Minister any complaint, will he give it his attention?

Viscount Cranborne: Certainly.

TRACK-LAYING TRACTORS (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. T. Williams (for Mr. A. V. Alexander): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, at the time the import duty of track-laying tractors was increased, an assurance was given by home manufacturers that a suitable tractor would be produced in this country; whether he is aware that the National Farmers' Union are of opinion that that promise has not been fulfilled and that farmers are in consequence handicapped in their business; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: The report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, dated 9th June, 1936, which recommended an increase in the duty on track-laying tractors to the present rate, stated that the committee had taken into account the capacity of the British manufacturers to produce an adequate supply of track-laying tractors of proved capacity. I am not aware that the present rate of duty is a handicap to farmers; but if the National Farmers' Union are of that opinion, it is open to them to make representations to the committee.

Mr. Williams: If representations were made to the Minister with regard to unfulfilled promises, would he look into them?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. This is a matter for the committee.

CANNING INDUSTRY.

Mr. A. Jenkins (for Mr. James Griffiths): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in furtherance of


the plans for the storage of food in preparation for a national emergency, consideration is being given to the development of the food canning industry in this country; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the suitability of South-West Wales for this development where there is a large area of land suitable for food production in close proximity to the centre of the tinplate industry?

Mr. Stanley: The creation of a reserve of canned goods as a part of a food storage scheme is receiving careful consideration. I should add, however, that I am not sure that this proposal, if adopted, would foster a development of the industry in the manner the hon. Member suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES, INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the provisions of the Bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly of Southern Rhodesia, under which it is proposed to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act, involve the fixing of a colour bar; and whether an opportunity will be given for discussing this Bill before he gives his sanction to it?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The main effect of the Bill in question, which has now been passed, is to give power to the Governor to apply to natives in municipal areas the terms of industrial agreements which have been previously declared binding upon non-natives engaged in the industry concerned. I have already informed the Governor that His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance in respect of the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE (EXPORTS TO CANADA).

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Canadian Government are refusing permits for the import of cattle from Great Britain; whether this is due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; whether he is aware that exporters have cattle waiting for export at

the ports; and whether representations are being made?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am glad to say that the Canadian Government have recently intimated that, following upon the removal, on 9th December, of the foot-and-mouth disease Standstill Order which was in force in certain parts of Great Britain, they are prepared to grant permits for the import into Canada of United Kingdom cattle, through the London quarantine station.

RABBITS (DAMAGE).

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that certain farms are so leased that the farmer is not allowed the necessary freedom to destroy rabbits; that fields of corn are often almost destroyed by these pests; and whether he can take steps to assist the farmer in this respect?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am fully alive to the difficulties of some farmers in keeping their land free from rabbits, and to the extent of the damage they are liable to suffer. As regards rabbits on the farmer's own land, he has adequate rights under the Ground Game Act, 1880. The position arising from the incursion of rabbits from adjoining lands is dealt with in the report of the Select Committee of another place, and I am at present considering the question of legislation to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can my right hon. Friend say when that legislation is likely to be brought forward?

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that whole fields of wheat are being destroyed by these rabbits, and that in many cases farmers who wish to destroy them are under certain limitations in their leases; and will he speed up such legislation?

Mr. Morrison: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), I should not like to commit myself as to when this legislation can be introduced. As the House is aware, I am making considerable demands upon its time already, and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to defer an answer until I see my way more clear. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson),


the covenant in a lease which purports to restrict the rights of a tenant under the Ground Game Act is void by the Statute.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister circulate to magistrates his wish that they should cease sending miners to prison for that sort of thing?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Banfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in a Japanese news service issued to Members of Parliament, it is alleged that England is making dum-dum bullets for use by China against Japan; and whether he will state the number of licences issued for the export of this type of ammunition, the quantities concerned, and the destination?

Mr. Stanley: No licences have been granted for the export of ammunition for war purposes of so-called "dumdum" type for China or any other destination.

Mr. Banfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything to stop or to counteract this kind of propaganda, which causes friction between the two peoples?

Mr. Stanley: The best way of counteracting false propaganda is to let the truth be known, and thanks to the hon. Gentleman I have had the opportunity of stating what is the truth.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of oil exported from British sources to meet Japanese orders during the year 1936, and during the year 1937 up to date?

Mr. Stanley: As indicated in the answer which was given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton), imports of petroleum from British countries into Japan come almost wholly from Borneo, but a complete record is not available. No information regarding countries to which petroleum is exported is published in the trade returns of the British territories in Borneo.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not possible to find out how much is exported to Japan from Borneo?

Mr. Stanley: I will see whether there is any way of getting the information, but it is not published in the returns that are normally made.

Mr. Henderson: In view of what is taking place in China, is it not important to know whether this country is in any way responsible for supplying Japanese aeroplanes with fuel?

Mr. Stanley: As I have said, I will see whether it is possible to get the information, but Borneo is a long way off.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese stored six months' supply of petrol before they started the slaughter in China?

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make with regard to attacks on British shipping in the Yangtse?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Government have under urgent examination the situation created by the attacks on British ships by Japanese forces on the Yangtse River. I regret that I am not in a position to make any further statement to-day, but if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat his question tomorrow, I expect then to be able to give him a full reply.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it a fact that German diplomatic headquarters in China were on board one of the attacked British ships, and is there any truth in the statement that even the German Government have identified themselves with the British protest?

Mr. Eden: I do not know why the hon. Member uses the word "even." It is a fact that our ships have been giving assistance to Europeans in China, what ever their nationality.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the Japanese Government have been expressing their apologies and regrets while their military men have been sending more bombs?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of awards for gallantry that have been made during the


12 months ended to the last convenient date to officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine by the British Government and/or foreign Governments?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad to have this opportunity to say that during the 12 months, 1st December, 1936, to 30th November, 1937, awards for gallantry were made by His Majesty's Government to six officers and 30 men of the British Mercantile Marine and, during the same period, by the French Government to two officers and six men and by the Argentine Government to two men.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister consider whether greater publicity can be given to these feats of gallantry?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I will certainly consider that.

SHIPS (INSURANCE).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has come to any conclusion regarding the recommendations of the committee on the insurance of ships; and whether steps are being taken to make these recommendations compulsory upon the industry?

Mr. Stanley: I am unable at present to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 27th July. As I then indicated, one of the recommendations of the committee was put into operation by the market. The other recommendation, namely, that the dual valuation clause should be adopted for all hull policies, is still the subject of discussion by the industry.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication as to when he proposes to carry out the second part of the recommendation?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member means carry it out by legislation, I have explained previously that I only propose to do that if we fail to get an agreement in the industry to carry it out without legislation.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentlman taking any action which will ensure an agreement being reached?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir; before the hon. Member put down his question I had addressed a reminder to the Chamber of Shipping that it was about time this matter was settled.

FOREIGN CONSTRUCTION (UNITED KINGDOM REGISTRATION).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships and of what tonnage have been built or are under construction, respectively, for British owners in foreign shipyards and in what countries?

Mr. Stanley: There are no official statistics of ships built or under construction for British owners in foreign shipyards, but the number of steam and motor vessels of 100 tons gross and over of recent foreign construction which have been registered in the United Kingdom since 1st January, 1935, is 76, totalling 180,810 tons gross. Of these, 46 vessels of 128,818 gross tons were built in Germany; 23 of 36,206 gross tons in Holland; four of 1,410 gross tons in Norway; two of 14,269 gross tons in Italy, and one of 107 gross tons in Yugoslavia.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

JUNIOR OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an undertaking that, after completing the reorganisation of the Army Higher Command, he will carry out equally extensive reorganisation of the present system of promotion of junior officers in the Army; and whether, in particular, he will reform the present regimental system which results in many officers remaining in the respective rank of lieutenant, captain, or major for more than 10 years despite evidence of particular ability?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I understand that the question of the promotion of junior officers in the Army has been examined by the Willingdon Committee.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for War the length of training period to be given to soldiers before discharge under the new scheme lately introduced by his Department?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The training period is normally six months.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give consideration to lowering the age at which marriage allowances are given to soldiers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The age limit before which a soldier is not eligible for marriage allowance has been deliberately chosen, having regard to a soldier's liability to movement at relatively frequent intervals.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of this reform would be comparatively small, and that the reform itself is very desirable, and will he not agree to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will always agree to consider any proposal, but there ought to be no doubt or mistake about this—that the Army deliberately appeals to celibates.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that policy fit in with the general policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is a very bad thing that the Army is to appeal only to celibates?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think that in fixing the marriage age at 26 we have not been unreasonable, because a soldier is subject to frequent moves in the Army, and that imposes hardship on his wife.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has received any representations on this subject from the Minister of Health?

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, are we to understand that if a recruit applies to join the Army and states that he is married and under this age, he will be refused?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) is that I have received no representations. In answer to the other supplementary question, no married man under 26 is enlisted in the Army unless he can show that his wife is financially independent.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the Minister say why, if the Army is to appeal only to celibates, he spends so much money dressing them up in nice unifoms?

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COLLEGE.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the Army who have served on

the staff of or been students at the Imperial Defence College have now left the active list or are Unemployed?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Since the inception of the Imperial Defence College in 1927, 65 officers of the British Army have passed through the College, including those leaving this month. Of these, five officers have retired; the remainder are all on the active list and are all employed.

SUPPLY OF OFFICERS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for War when the Willingdon Committee was appointed; what is its composition and terms of reference; and when its report is expected?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) on 27th May. I hope to receive the report of the Committee before the end of this month.

OFFICERS' RATION ALLOWANCES.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate equivalent annual cash value to an officer of the recent concessions in respect of rations and ration allowances?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The average annual cash equivalent is estimated at £6 10s.; the actual amount for an individual officer varies, of course, according to the particular circumstances.

Sir A. Wilson: Does that include officers serving abroad?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They are particulars for all officers in the British Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (PERIODS OF SERVICE).

Mr. Goldie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to the encouragement of enlistment in the Territorial Army, he is prepared to allow enlistment in the first instance to be for a probationary period of one year with the option to extend, in order to secure the services of those men who for personal reasons are not prepared to bind themselves for the present period of four years?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the adoption of this proposal resulted in a widespread reduction of the periods of service of men of the Territorial Army, not only would training suffer, but the strength of the Territorial Army might fall, compared with that now reached, despite some increase in the number of recruits.

Mr. Goldie: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what happens in the case of a recruit who, for reasons of employment, has to leave the area in which he enlisted?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down that question I will get him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is no prospect of many of the new contracts for house building now being entered into by Scottish municipalities being commenced within the next 18 months' time; whether he can make any statement as to the causes of this serious state of affairs; whether similar delays in the building programme are taking place in England and Wales; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the provision of urgently required houses in Scotland shall be expedited and not retarded?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): There will, undoubtedly, be considerable delay in the completion of many of the new contracts being entered into by Scottish local authorities. At the present rate of building this might in some cases be 18 months or more. The causes are mainly the shortage of building labour and, to some extent, shortage of materials. I understand that no comparable delay is likely to occur in England, but for exact information as to the position there I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. With regard to the last part of the question, following discussions with representatives of the building industry, a joint consultative committee has been set up to carry out the agreement reached for augmenting the personnel of the industry, and steps have also been taken to encourage increased production of essential materials. In addition, a housing association has been

formed for the purpose of supplementing the activities of local authorities in the Special Areas by the erection of houses in methods of construction alternative to brick.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the serious nature of that answer, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of getting some of the new munition works built of cement instead of bricks? Would not that ease the position as regards house building?

Mr. Elliot: We are in consultation with the industry seeing whether alternative methods can be employed anywhere to ease the strain on the more orthodox method.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Special Areas Housing Association to proceed on a large scale with the erection of houses produced by alternative methods?

Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister given any attention to the resolutions passed at the conference of local authorities in Scotland, and will he try to comply with the terms of it?

Mr. Elliot: The local authorities were not dealing with the shortage of labour. It was a question of more money for the houses under construction, and I have explained that I do not think that would accelerate the housing construction programme in Scotland.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conference dealt with other questions than that of money?

Mr. Elliot: But my answer shows that the Government have already taken steps to deal with those aspects of the matter.

Mr. Johnston: If it be the case that there is no delay in proceeding with contracts in England, and if there is 18 months' delay in proceeding with housing contracts in Scotland, could not arrangements be made to get some material from England, not leaving us in this parlous state?

Mr. Elliot: It is open to anybody to bring material from England. There is no barrier against that.

Mr. Cassells: Does the question of rising costs in any way contribute towards this delay of 18 months?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think it does. I believe the shortage of labour is very considerable and I do not think the rising costs enter into that.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: In view of the fact that the shortage of labour does not affect alternative methods of building houses, will not the right hon. Gentleman urge upon the Special Areas Housing Association to proceed on a really large scale with the building of these alternative houses?

Mr. Elliot: The Housing Association has been formed for the purpose of proceeding by alternative methods, and it must, in the first instance, feel its way, but I hope very much that it will be able to press on actively in a very short time.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that some of the tenants of houses at 5, Comely Park Terrace and 35, Comely Park Street, Glasgow, were ordered by the sanitary officer to strip the paper off the walls of their houses; that bugs were found infesting the plaster in some of the houses; that in one house there was evidence of gnawed woodwork, probably caused by rats; that the senior assistant medical officer of the Glasgow public health department has reported that the tenants were mostly of a good type and that their houses were kept in a satisfactory manner; and what steps are now being taken to compel the landlord to put the plaster work in a satisfactory condition and to redecorate the houses where the walls were stripped, so as to make the houses suitable for habitation?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that in order to reveal broken plaster and facilitate disinfestation the tenants, in their own interests, were advised, but not ordered, by the sanitary officer, to strip the paper off their walls. Slight bug infestation was found behind the wallpaper but not in the plaster, and in one house at 5, Comely Park Terrace, a hole was found under the sink which may or may not have been caused by rats. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the affirmative, namely, that the tenants are mostly of a good type and that their houses are kept in a satisfactory manner. With regard to the last part, I am informed that the factors' tradesmen have already repaired most of the broken plaster and have sealed the holes in the house at 5,

Comely Park Terrace. The corporation have no power to instruct a landlord in matters of decoration or redecoration. They have, however, provided the tenants in question with distemper, whitewash and size.

Miss Wilkinson: What is the official standard as to how many bugs constitute slight infestation?

Mr. Elliot: I think that is a question which might be more properly addressed to the local authority.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. Cassells (for Mr. R. Gibson): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider an increase in the grant to the Scottish Travel Association for the purpose of advertising overseas the attractions of Scotland to tourists and the special attractions afforded in 1938 by Scotland's Empire Exhibition?

Mr. Elliot: The arrangements for advertising the Empire Exhibition to be held in Glasgow in 1938 are in the hands of a representative committee, which has been appointed by the Exhibition authorities and includes representatives of the Scottish Travel Association. I am assured that all possible means are being taken, and will continue to be used by that committee, to advertise the special attractions of the Exhibition, not only in this country, but throughout the world.

Mr. Stephen: Would the money not be much better spent in providing houses for people who cannot get them?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HIGHWAY EXPENDITURE (WALES).

Sir H. Haydn Jones: asked the Minister of Transport the total amount received from Wales in respect of motor licences in 1936, and the total of grants made in respect of roads and bridges in that country during the same year?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): During the financial year ended 31st March, 1937, the net proceeds of motor licence duties collected in Wales amounted to £1,249,000, and grants to Welsh authorities in respect of highway expenditure to £1,263,000.

MOTOR INSURANCE (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the fact that insurance against third-party risks is compulsory, he will cause inquiry to be made into the practice of insurance companies in requiring serving officers in the Army under the age of 21 years to pay £10 excess in all sections of a motor-car insurance policy, an additional premium of 50 per cent., and to be excluded from any benefit for personal accident and passenger's risk, with a view to ascertaining what evidence the companies can produce to justify these heavy premiums and restricted benefits?

Captain Hudson: I have no reason to suppose that there is any agreement among insurers to impose the special terms mentioned by my hon. Friend, and there is complete freedom of contract in respect of motor insurance except in regard to the compulsory cover against third-party risks. Insurers have clearly the right to adjust their rates in accordance with claims experience, but I am satisfied that the market is sufficiently wide to ensure competitive rates.

Mr. Lewis: Having regard to the fact that these restrictions are imposed because these men are in the service of the Crown, does not the Minister think that it behoves the Government to take note of this question; and, if I give him particulars of an actual case, will he have it looked into?

Captain Hudson: Certainly. If my hon. Friend will let us have the particulars we shall be glad to have them looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW REPORTS (COUNTY COURTS).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Attorney-General whether Law Reports are furnished free of charge in county courts in England?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I presume that the question refers to Law Reports for the use of the court. If so, the answer is "Yes."

Mr. Cassells: How long has this system been in existence?

The Solicitor-General: I think the practice has prevailed for some considerable time. County court judges are supplied

on request at the public expense with the reports such as the Law Journal reports, but, of course, no judge asks for them all, and many have sets of their own.

Mr. Goldie: Is the Solicitor-General not aware that law reports are not provided in some of the smaller assize towns, and will he take steps to see that they are supplied?

The Solicitor-General: That is a separate question which I should like to see on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (LAND ACQUISITION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to see that special consideration is given to the question of land acquired by the Defence Departments which is subject to rights of common and enjoying in ordinary circumstances statutory protection against enclosure or development, in order to prevent such land being subsequently offered for sale with the rights of common extinguished?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I shall be happy to look into the question raised by the hon. Member, in consultation with the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Mander: Would the Minister be good enough to let me know in due course what action he has been able to take in the matter?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Mr. Maitland: asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that the waiters employed in this House receive a weekly wage of 31s. 6d. plus tips; and whether arrangements can now be made for the waiters to be paid a regular and reasonable wage and tipping to be abolished?

Sir John Ganzoni: The Committee is quite in sympathy with the hon. Member's suggestion, but as wages at present absorb 34.68 per cent. of the total receipts, I regret that it is not possible to abolish the present system, unless hon. Members are willing to provide for the increased wage cost by agreeing to the addition of a fixed percentage on their bills.

Mr. Maitland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is general agreement among Members of this House that the kitchen staff should be paid a regular and reasonable wage, and not be dependent upon precarious tipping, which may or may not be adequate to secure that wage?

Sir J. Ganzoni: If the majority of Members will assist the Committee in strengthening their hands with the Treasury on this subject, we shall be very grateful.

Mr. Mathers: What wage would be required to cause the staff to agree to the abolition of the tipping system?

Sir J. Ganzoni: We made a computation this summer, and a special report was issued early this year that the sum would be £3,000.

Mr. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain the views of hon. Members?

Sir J. Ganzoni: The Committee would be perfectly willing to do so.

COAL CARRYING.

Mr. Thorne: asked the First Commissioner of works whether he is aware of the long distance that the porters have to carry the coal to the various rooms in this House; and will he consider the question of having the coal carried on small four-wheel carriers?

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend understands that most of the men prefer to carry the coal in skips, as the effort is less than that which would be involved in loading and unloading a wheeled carrier. A wheeled carrier was available some years ago, but was withdrawn as the porters never used it.

Mr. Thorne: I do not believe that that statement is true.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARITY COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. Mander: asked the hon. Member for Swansea, as representing the Charity Commissioners, when he expects to be in a position to make a statement with regard to the work of his Department for the past year?

Mr. Lewis Jones (Charity Commissioner): The eighty-fourth report of the Charity Commissioners for the year 1936 was made to His Majesty at the end of March last, and a copy of this report was on 30th March last forwarded to the Clerk of the House of Commons to be laid before the House. The eighty-fifth report of the Charity Commissioners for the year 1937 will be made at the end of March next.

Mr. Mander: In view of the grave matters committed to the charge of my hon. Friend, does he not think that we ought to have one full day's discussion on this matter, and would he not himself come down to open the Debate on it?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman cared, with his proverbial assiduity, to press this matter in those quarters which are known as "the usual channels," I should be most happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister the approximate date when the report from the Royal Commission on the geographical distribution of industry can be expected, or whether it is intended to issue an interim report before the complete report is ready?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 2nd December. I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to that reply.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the approximate date when we may expect this report, or an interim report?

Mr. Chamberlain: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that after deduction of freight there was a balance of £19,000,000 in favour of Argentina arising from Anglo-Argentine trade for the first six months of 1937; and will he prepare a scheme for exchange


clearing to enable this balance to be used to defend the £442,000,000 of British investments in Argentina upon much of which no income has been received by British nationals owing to the exchange tax imposed by the Argentine Government?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 30th November.

Mr. De la Bère: Why are the Government so reluctant to institute a scheme of exchange clearing, seeing that it might assist some of the small investors who are suffering great anxiety over their investments in Argentina, and is it not due from the Government to do something to protect their own investors?

Sir J. Simon: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the answer to which I have referred him. Perhaps he will find what he wants there.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will given an assurance that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to refuse to permit the raising of loans in this country by any country or its nationals committing an act of aggression against a member of the League of Nations; and whether such embargo will apply to Japan?

Sir J. Simon: So far as I am aware, no question arises at the present time of the issue of loans in this country by any foreign Government which could be regarded as covered by the terms of the hon. Member's question, or by its nationals, and accordingly the question of permitting such loans does not arise.

Mr. Henderson: In the event of any application being received from Japan, will His Majesty's Government bear in mind the undesirability of allowing Japan to finance her war in China by advances from this country?

Sir J. Simon: On the general policy, if the hon. Member will refer to the statement made by the then Prime Minister on 23rd June, 1936, he will see what principle governs the attitude of the Government.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the foreign lending system of this country require drastic overhauling?

Mr. Thorne: Will this country and America work together on this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY CUTS (RESTORATION).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the cuts in salary, wages or pensions of public servants, which were imposed as a measure of economy in 1931, have not yet been restored?

Sir J. Simon: I am in some doubt as to the scope of this question. If my hon. Friend has in mind Government employés, I am aware of no case in which the reductions, imposed as a measure of economy in 1931, have not now been restored. If he has in mind the consequential effect on teachers' pensions of reductions in salary prior to retirement, I would refer him to the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1935, by which the present position is governed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX RECEIPTS, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Sir H. Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total sums received from collectors of taxes stationed in Wales and Monmouthshire during the years 1935 and 1936?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I regret that this information is not available, as the tax receipts are not classified so as to show separately the amounts collected in Wales and Monmouth.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MINT (EX-SERVICE (EMPLOYES).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that ex-service men employed at the Royal Mint, with 15 to 18 years' service, are still classified as temporary employés, without pension rights or payment for sickness absence; and what steps are being taken to grant pension rights and payment during sickness to these men?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The employés referred to are unestablished industrial


staff. It is not customary to grant establishment, carrying pension and sick leave privileges, to industrial employés generally, but a considerable number of established posts for which such employés are eligible are provided at the Mint. Twenty-seven of the unestablished men have been appointed to such posts in the last two years.

Mr. Morrison: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into this question a little further, and see whether the Mint cannot be made a little better than the worst employers of the country, in view of the fact that there are employés there with from 15 to 18 years' service who are not entitled to a single day's sick leave and have no pension rights?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: In comparison with other Government establishments, the Mint receives specially favourable treatment. At the present time there are 173 established industrial employés.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not dispute my statement that there are men with from 15 to 18 years' service who have no pension rights and no sickness allowance?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir, I do not dispute that, but I am pointing out that, comparing the Mint with other Government establishments, the Mint's employés are by no means unfairly treated.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPERTY INVESTMENT SOCIETIES.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many property investment societies were registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts during the years 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937; and what is the total amount of share capital of the societies so registered?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of property investment societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts during the last four years is as follows:



1934
…
…
…
4


1935
…
…
…
22


1936
…
…
…
36


1937
…
…
…
31


Total
…
…
…
93

An industrial and provident society is not required, on registration, to state the amount of its nominal capital, as is a company registered under the Companies Act, and for this reason the latest figures available relate to the amount of paid-up share capital at the end of 1936. Of the 62 property societies registered in 1934–36, 58 were on the register at the end of 1936 and their paid-up share capital was then £116,728.

There are nine property societies which were registered before 1934 and which had paid-up share capital amounting to £709,002 at the end of 1936. The total paid-up share capital of the 67 societies on the register at the end of 1936 was, therefore, £825,730.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has been informed of the resolutions passed recently at public meetings held under the auspices of Scottish local authorities calling for such an increase in old age pensions as would afford pensioners an adequate means of subsistence without resort to the public assistance authority; and whether he proposes to take any action on the lines of these resolutions?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave on 18th November to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), and on 28th October last to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). I am sending him copies of these replies.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MINISTRY CONTRACTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that, as disclosed in the second report from the Committee of Public Accounts, 1937, a fixed minimum profit of 5 per cent. is allowed to all Air Ministry contractors, he is now able to state what maximum profit is permitted?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Reference to the minutes of evdence given before the Public Accounts Committee and to the report issued will show that the minimum profit of 5 per cent. referred to by the hon. Member is not allowed, as he states, to all Air Ministry contractors but only in certain circumstances. There is no prescribed maximum, and the rate of profit which can reasonably be allowed is left for determination according to the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. Mander: Can the Under-Secretary say what is the maximum profit ever yet permitted in a single case?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the great public anxiety on this question, and the confusion which surrounds the system under which the Air Ministry operates, will the Under-Secretary consider making a public statement on the state of the Air Ministry's financial relations with contractors, before the House rises for Christmas?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think the hon. Member will find that the system under which contracts are made has been explained to the House on a good number of occasions. Owing, of course, to the very exceptional conditions of the expansion programme, exceptional measures have had to be taken for making contracts.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, while the system has been explained to the House, the extent to which that system has been put into operation has not been disclosed to the House; and that that is a matter which is causing a good deal of public inquiry and anxiety?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The system is being operated as it has been explained to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

AGED PERSONS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities are generally providing an adequate number of dwellings of suitable types for elderly persons; and whether he has any information as to

the average rents charged for such accommodation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend is satisfied that local authorities are making considerable efforts to provide houses of this type. By the end of October he had approved the provision of close on 27,500 of such houses. My right hon. Friend has no definite information relating to the rents charged for this type of accommodation, but, of all the houses provided by local authorities, some 23,000 are let at rents of 3s. a week or less.

Sir Joseph Nail: Is the Minister satisfied that the progress that has been made is adequate to meet the case?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that that is so.

Mr. Adams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at a meeting of the National Housing Congress at Harrogate, which was addressed by the Minister, a definite demand was made for additional houses of this character?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Is any allowance being made for houses for young married couples?

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to assist local authorities in their administration of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, he will consider the possibility of publishing annual reports on appeals under interim development procedure?

Mr. Bernays: Summaries of appeal decisions of general interest are always included in the annual report of the Ministry on Housing and Town and Country Planning.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (MINIMUM WAGE RATES).

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a list of the Colonial territories in which a minimum wage has actually been fixed for any occupation?

Mr. Cross: I have been asked to reply. Inquiries on this subject were addressed to Colonial Governments last summer.


Some of the replies have still to be received, but according to my present information the present position is as follows: Minimum rates of wages have been prescribed in the Bahamas for unskilled labourers employed in the building trade; in Grenada and St. Vincent for agricultural labourers; in St. Lucia, for agricultural labourers generally, for workers engaged in the sugar industry, and for persons engaged in various occupations in the coaling industry; and in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, for native labourers. In Malta, an Order prescribing minimum rates of wages for employés in shops will come into force on 1st January, and an Order prescribing minimum rates of wages for employés in the land transport services has been published in draft form in the Government Gazette. In the Straits Settlements and in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, standard rates of wages are prescribed in certain areas for labourers employed by Government. In Ceylon the question of introducing a minimum wage for agricultural and industrial labourers is now under consideration.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it the case that in some instances the minimum wage is only 1s. a day for men and 8d. for women?

Mr. Cross: I have given a very full answer, and I think that any further questions had better be put down.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister publish the figures also in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Cross: I think that, if the hon. Member asks for them, my right hon. Friend will do what he can.

Mr. Lunn: Will these minimum wage rates become operative in accordance with an Ordinance; and when can we expect full particulars from the Secretary of State regarding the matter?

Mr. Cross: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman will read the answer, he will find that his first question is partly covered. With regard to the second part, I think it had better be put down.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Are we to understand that the authorities are about to lay down minimum rates of wages for shop assistants in Malta?

Mr. Cross: An Order prescribing minimum rates of wages will come into force on 1st January next.

Mr. Riley: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to give, as regards the cases mentioned in his reply, the annual amounts paid?

Mr. Cross: That does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Cassells (for Mr. R. Gibson): asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement of the Government's policy to meet the serious unemployment problem that threatens the country in view of the oncoming slump?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the implication in the question, and consider that talk of an oncoming slump is not only exaggerated but dangerous. This country is in a far better position to meet any temporary decline in trade than at any time since the War.

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be a good thing if hon. Members remembered what Job said:
The thing I greatly feared is come upon me
and cast out fear?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried, it is proposed to ask the House to sit very late to-night?

The Prime Minister: I think that to-day we should try to reach Clause 18 of the Coal Bill. I do not think that any important points of principle are involved in any of the Clauses concerned, and I hope we shall try to reach this without sitting later than midnight.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 121.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[3.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Petherick, M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pilkington, R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Apsley, Lord
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Porritt, R. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Power, Sir J. C.


Assheton, R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Harbord, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Raid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bernays, R. H.
Hepworth, J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Blair, Sir R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blaker, Sir R.
Higgs, W. F.
Rowlands, G.


Boulton, W. W.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Bull, B. B.
Hulbert, N. J.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Burton, Col. H. W.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Savery, Sir Servington


Butcher, H. W.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Scott, Lord William


Butler, R. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cary, R. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Channon, H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spens, W. P.


Christie, J. A.
Leigh, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Levy, T.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lewis, O.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Storey, S.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lyons, A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crooke, J. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McKie, J. H.
Touche, G. C.


Cross, R. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Train, Sir J.


Crossley, A. C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Magnay, T.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Maitland, A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De Chair, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De la Bère, R.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denville, Alfred
Marsden, Commander A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Drewe, C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dunglass, Lord.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elmley, Viscount
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wise, A. R.


Emery, J. F.
Munro, P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Nall, Sir J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Errington, E.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wragg, H.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Everard, W. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fleming, E. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Patrick, C. M.
Captain Hope and Captain


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Peake, O.
Dugdale.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.








NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Benson. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Cassells, T.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Chater, D.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 13th December.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 7.—(Ascertainment and distribution of compensation.)

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I should like to hear an explanation from the hon. Member of the purport of the first Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 8, line 4, at the beginning, to insert:
Subject to the conditions contained in paragraph 15 of Part III, of the Third Schedule to this Act.
—before deciding whether to select it or not.

Mr. Lawson: The intention of putting down the Amendment is mainly to obtain an explanation upon a certain point.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me what point.

Mr. Lawson: The point is as to whether that part of the Schedule which deals with the costs of valuation proceedings applies as far as this particular Sub-section of the Clause is concerned. Sub-section (9) says:
Subject as aforesaid, the compensation payable under Section six of this Act shall be ascertained and paid subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act.
I desire to move the Amendment in order to ask the Minister whether the proceedings dealing with the costs of valuation apply in particular to this Sub-section.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have come to the conclusion that I cannot call the Amendment as it is out of place. The question of costs will come up on Clauses 31 and 33, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask for an explanation, that will be the appropriate place in which to do it.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 8, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(9) At the expiration of three months from the vesting date and at the expiration of every subsequent period of three months if the amounts of the values of all holdings in any region have not then been certified by

the Regional Valuation Board for that region under Sub-section (6) of this Section, that Board shall supply to the Commission a statement showing the amount upon which, in their opinion, interest should be paid provisionally for such three months in respect of the compensation for each of such holdings.
(10) Forthwith upon receiving the said statement the Commission shall pay to the person then entitled to the compensation in respect of each such holding interest for such three months at a rate calculated in accordance with Sub-section (8) of this Section on the amount shown in such statement in respect of such holding.
(11) Upon making the final payments of compensation for such region under Sub-section (7) of this Section the Commission shall make any addition to or deduction from the payment in respect of any holding that may be necessary in order to correct the amount of interest thus provisionally calculated and paid in respect of that holding for any such period of three months.
The Amendment raises the question as to the valuations and the vesting date. On the vesting date the axe comes down, and the income which coalowners have been enjoying from royalties passes to the Commission. Although there is in the Schedule a provision authorising payment on account to those persons who have been enjoying income from royalties if the valuations have not been completed by that date, it is only a permissive power, and the object of the Amendment is to put into the Bill a scheme under which these persons will be assured of a quarterly income during the period after the vesting date until such time as the valuations are completed. The case is put not so much on behalf of those who are enjoying in their own right the income from royalties, but on behalf of a great number of cases in which all sorts of payments, quarterly and otherwise, are made to persons who have no direct income from the royalties at all. It is the source from which their income comes.
In the same way there are a vast number of mortgages in connection with the industry, and that interest has to be continued regularly, and to allow a situation to grow up under which the Commission can only make a permissive payment on account, is obviously going to lead to a great amount of inconvenience. In a great number of cases, if these permissive payments are not made regularly, it means that these persons will have to make application to the banks to tide them over the time between payment and payment. It is obvious that a vast number of these small people must be assured


of a regular income at regular intervals, and, therefore, we suggest that in cases where the valuation is not completed this should be made obligatory on the Commission. That is to say, that an estimate should be put in of what is likely to come to these people, and that interest at 3 per cent. on the sum should be paid regularly by quarterly instalments until the valuations are completed. I am sure a great deal of inconvenience will be saved, and also a great deal of expense to these people, who, in many cases, will be driven to finance themselves through the banks from time to time. Our feeling is very strong that in a number of cases these valuations will not be completed. You need only have a dispute in a single unit in any area to hold up the completion of all the valuations in that area. It may be that in 500 units in one area you know exactly what 499 are going to get, yet if there is one unit which has not been completed, the whole valuation for the whole 500 remains uncertain and ineffective. We suggest that the machinery of the Clause is not sufficient, and that we should put into the Bill a provision which will safeguard the income to these persons.

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): What the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has in mind is the possibility of a delay in valuation and, therefore, a delay in paying compensation. He speaks not from the point of view of the owners to whom compensation is to be given, but from the point of view of those interests which are a charge on the present property, whether it is mortgage interest or jointures, which, of course, have to be paid. He proposes by his Amendment to tide over what may be a temporary difficulty. The point was raised the other day, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that provisions were in the Schedule under which it was possible to make payments on account, and that while this, in his view, covered the point, he would see whether it did or did not. Obviously it would be a serious thing if the mortgage interest could not be paid, but the Amendment assumes two things: first, that the valuers will be able to make the estimates, and, secondly, that the persons entitled to compensation will be ascertained. Those are two rather large assumptions on which to base a payment of this kind as a right. If the Amendment

were passed these persons would, as a right, get money on account. The hon. and learned Member says that it would be difficult to leave them in the position of being dependent on what the Commission might do. I should have thought that in such a case the Commission would use its powers to avoid any hardship, and would realise the difficulty in which these people are placed. I do not think we can accept the Amendment as it is. We think that the provision in the Schedule will really cover the point, but we recognise that if there were any undue delay there would be great hardship, and something might have to be done to meet it. The Amendment, however, is not moved in any anticipation of a complete breakdown of the valuation machinery. I hope the hon. and learned Member will see that we have this matter in mind. We think the situation is already met.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: It seems to me that the Secretary for Mines has been much too generous to the hon. and learned Member and the interests he undoubtedly represents in the Committee. I should imagine that no case of hardship could possibly arise. One could imagine cases of hardship if persons were deprived of mortgage interest and any financial rights they held immediately prior to the vesting date and until the vesting date, but, in fact, they are in possession of all these rights up to the vesting date itself. How then can hardship arise? We are asked to agree that every three months after the vesting date, if the regional valuation has not been completed, the Commission should dole out interest. I am surprised at the hon. and learned Member postulating this claim, because on an Amendment which we previously discussed, where we argued that it might be possible for the Commission to pay out interest on claims which were pending in anticipation of the valuation date and of the agreements arising from valuation, he opposed it strenuously. I should have imagined that, having opposed it on the ground that it was inexpedient to adopt the method of interest payment instead of allowing the royalty owners to remain in possession of certain rights, making a gift to them of several million pounds, he could not now come forward with this absurd and preposterous Amendment. I hope—and I think I speak here for hon.


Members on this side generally—that the Secretary for Mines will not consider this matter from the standpoint of any possible case of hardship, but will consider it from the standpoint of the Commission's functions and of the general interests of the industry.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: We on this side are grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) for bringing forward this Amendment, because it throws light on a discussion which we had last night. The hon. and learned Member evidently takes the same view as was taken by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan), who spoke last night, that it was at present impracticable to pay interest to these persons in anticipation of full payment. He wishes to secure that the Commission shall be under an obligation to pay interest upon capital valuations which have not yet been completed. If that be so, and I understand that the hon. and learned Member agrees that it is so, we cannot understand the statement made by the Government yesterday, that it was impracticable to make payments of this kind as between the valuation date and the vesting date. It would appear to us that if the Minister of Mines is correct and the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford is already met in the Bill, they are not entitled to argue that the vesting date cannot be made the valuation date, and in fact we are asked under the Bill to make a perfectly gratuitous payment of about £9,000,000 to the royalty owners in excess of what they can claim in equity.
We would like to have from the Minister a more satisfactory answer. Last night, on a very important Amendment, we had a discussion which, I am bound to say, had it occurred either later or earlier in the day, would have received more attention from the Committee than it did, but because the greater part of it occurred during the dinner hour, when hon. Members were otherwise engaged, it did not receive full attention. We had no satisfactory reply from the Government on the point last night, and we shall have to insist on more consideration being given to it. If it be true, as the Secretary for

Mines has said, that this point is covered in the Bill as it stands, if it is practicable for the Commission to pay interest in anticipation of a valuation that is not yet completed, we would like to learn from him what we did not learn last night, namely, on what grounds he resisted the Amendment to make the vesting date the valuation date.

4.6 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We cannot, of course, rediscuss the Amendment that was before the Committee last night, but when we come to the Schedule, which also, of course, we cannot discuss now, it may be possible to agree to make payments on account, because by that time, after the vesting date, the great bulk of this information will be available. It is not available now, but by then it will be possible in certain circumstances to make payments if the whole process is not completed. I made it clear last night that we consider that three and a half years will be quite adequate, but, of course, we are only mortal, and all sorts of occurrences may take place, and, though this is not what my hon. and learned Friend had in mind, it is possible that we might be wrong in our estimate of the time. What my hon. and learned Friend has in mind is not the whole process of valuation, but that when you are aiming at finishing a certain process on a particular day, there might be a month more or something like that in individual cases. That is the case, I understand, that he has in mind.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman docs not get rid of the point by being vague about it. The fact is that there will be valuations not completed, although claims will have been made. Is it assumed that it will be possible on the basis of those claims to pay interest upon capital amounts not yet ascertained? The titles of these claims will be confirmed by July, 1939, and the only question which will be outstanding will be the amounts, but it is precisely the amounts which will still be in question for these people who are contemplated in the Amendment. If it is practicable for 5 per cent. it is practicable for the 100 per cent., because the only thing which will be in doubt, upon which you will not be entitled to make payment, is when the absolute title has not been established; but the title will have been established, surely, by July, 1939, and it is the assessment of the value


which will still be in question. I am bound to say that the Minister for Mines has not satisfied hon. Members on this side that the Amendment ought to be resisted, because he has told us that these powers are contemplated under the Bill. If they were incorporated in the Bill, it would serve to show that there is nothing impracticable about our proposal, that the way in which the Government propose to deal with these outstanding claims is also the machinery which could properly be applied to the whole of the claims under the Bill.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Batey: It seems to me that the Minister was not at all satisfactory. If I understood him clearly, he was rather lending encouragement to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on this Amendment. There will be three and a half years to complete the work before the vesting date, and before the valuation date there will be 12 months, so that there will really be 4½ years in which to complete the work, and I do not think the Minister is entitled to hold out to the hon. and learned Member any hope that these people will be allowed longer than the vesting date. Unless they have finished the work by the vesting date, no interest ought to be paid after the vesting date.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Spens: There is all the difference in the world between making a payment on account after the vesting date, four and a half years hence, and the suggestion put forward last night that there should be interest on a certain sum as from the valuation date. I cannot imagine any single mining district in the Kingdom where, by the valuation date, or within a year or 18 months of it, you will have got even an approximate figure of what any particular unit is going to receive. You will simply be paying interest blindly on some sum, which might work out to be far too much or far too little. By the time you have got the vesting date, the valuation ought very nearly to have been completed. I heard what the Secretary for Mines said, but I want to point out that the provisions of this Bill, although they follow the well established principles of law of vendor and purchaser generally, cut right across the well-known law in regard to what happens after the vesting date. I have a great belief that our ancestors built up a system of law which generally does

justice, and the whole principle of law in this connection is that between the contract date, the valuation date, and the vesting date the vendor should receive the profits of his property, but as from the vesting date or the date of completion, after the purchaser takes possession of his property, he is entitled to interest on his purchase money.
The contract in this Bill strictly follows the well established law as between the contract date, the valuation date, and the vesting date—the vendors get the profits of their property—but when we get to the vesting date, all that they get is a chance of a payment on account. It is quite obviously a new form of purchase so far as English law is concerned, and I therefore hope that before we get to the Schedule, though I agree that that is a good place on which to rediscuss the question, my hon. and gallant Friend will seriously consider the question and try to put in some machinery under which these people may be certain of getting some interest in respect of the property which will then have passed from them and be vested in the Commission. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Rights and obligations arising from contract for sale to have effect in respect of interim period.)

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out from "to," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
and in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:—

(a) the said rules shall have effect subject to such modifications as are requisite by virtue of the fact that the said premises are to vest by virtue of this Part of this Act in lieu of being conveyed;
(b) full regard shall be had to the nature of the said premises in all respects and, in particular, in determining whether any act or omission involves a breach of the obligation imposed on a vendor by the said rules to take due care of land that is the subject of a contract for sale, no person shall be treated as under obligation to exercise any greater measure of care in relation to any of the said premises than is exercised under the ordinary practice of the management of mineral estates by prudent owners in relation to property that is to continue in their ownership; and


(c) the contract for sale to be assumed for the purposes of the said rules shall be a contract providing expressly that the vendor should be entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the property until the date fixed for completion and to the benefit of the rents and profits thereof accruing up to that date, and that rents and profits accruing, or coal worked, before that date from a mine of coal that is opened after the date of the contract should be treated in like manner as if the mine had been open at the date thereof."
I suggest that the Clause as it stands is far from clear and that it ought to be made more specific. As it stands, it is almost certain to lead to litigation, having regard to the wasting nature of the property that is being transferred. In this respect coal does not resemble land, which has no wasting nature. I think I can best make clear my meaning if I ask hon. Members to look at Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 8. At the end of Subsection (1), the words
such modifications as are … otherwise requisite by virtue of the provisions of this Act,
are extremely vague: they could hardly be more vague. In Sub-section (2), I make no complaint about paragraph (a), which is reproduced as paragraph (c) of my Amendment, except that the words of my Amendment are certainly more precise. Paragraph (b) seems to me to be superfluous, if it refers only to taxes on royalties. Paragraph (c) also seems to be unnecessary, because rents always are apportioned up to the date of completion, or the date fixed for completion. Paragraph (d) leaves one in doubt as to whether it is the lessor or lessee to whom reference is made. I do not understand paragraph (e), because there are no obligations attaching to royalties other than checking measurements or tonnage. The Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself is an attempt to make the terms of the Clause more clear.

4.17 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): There is force in the criticisms which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has levelled against the wording of this Clause. It has always been our intention that in the application of the rules of law and equity in the interim period, due regard should be had to the fact that we are dealing with coal and coal premises and not with houses or land. I think it is a fair criticism to say that the specific

matters as stated in Sub-section (2) of the Clause are more applicable to land and to houses than to coal. As my hon. Friend has said, his Amendment makes the matter more clear than it is in the Clause as drafted at present. The Amendment seems to me to be acceptable.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Before the Committee accepts the Amendment, I think we might have from the hon. and learned Gentleman an explanation as to the implications of paragraph (c) which reads:
The contract for sale to be assumed for the purposes of the said rules shall be a contract providing expressly that the vendor should be entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the property until the date fixed for completion, and to the benefit of the rents and profits thereof accruing up to that date …" etc.
Would that mean providing for the vendor more rights than are intended in the Bill? If the hon. and learned Gentleman can satisfy me that the vendor is not given more rights, I should naturally give way to his opinion. There is no desire on the part of hon. Members on this side to prevent any vendor obtaining his full rights, but we want an assurance that no more than the vendor's just rights are to be involved.

4.21 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The first part of this paragraph does no more than make it clear that in the interim period the royalties go to the existing royalty owners. That is the basis on which we have already had many discussions. Hon. Members opposite put down an Amendment to vary that decision, but all that is done in the Amendment is to introduce more appropriate words to make the position clear. The wording represents exactly what would have been the result under Subsection (2) (a) of the Clause as drafted, although there it was not stated so expressly as it is in the Amendment. There need be no doubt that this provision of the Amendment carries out what is the intention of the Bill. May I add, with regard to the opening of a new mine, that it is intended, of course, that during the interim period the royalty owners should have the right to open a new mine if the demand for coal and the economic


and national circumstances make it right that that new mine should be opened. If it were not for the express wording of the Amendment, the position might have been that under the ordinary rules of law and equity he would not have been entitled so to act, as it might have made an alteration which the vendor who had entered into the contract would not have been entitled to make.

Mr. Short: May I ask whether, during the interim period, the royalty owners will have to obtain the permission of the Coal Commission before opening a new mine, or will they have freedom of action?

The Attorney-General: In granting a new lease, they will have to get the consent of the Commission. If a new mine can be opened under an existing lease, I do not think they will need to get that permission.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: As I have an Amendment on the Paper—in page 9, line II, to leave out from "period," to the end of the paragraph—concerning the control which the Coal Commission is to have over the opening of new mines in the interim period, which touches upon the Amendment now under discussion, may I ask you, Captain Bourne, whether I ought to raise that point now, since it seems to me, from the answer given by the Attorney-General, that the Amendment under discussion deals with the same point that I intend to raise in my Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: The position is this. If this Amendment is accepted by the Committee, the first part of it will delete that portion of the Clause to which the hon. Member's Amendment is down. Therefore, obviously he could not raise his Amendment. It would be appropriate for the hon. Member to raise any point he wishes to make before this Amendment is accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Lawson: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines what is to be the position of the Coal Commission in regard to the opening of new mines during the interim period? If new mines are to be opened, there must be some control by the Commission during that period, since the functions of the Commission from the time they begin

to operate are definitely that they shall be charged with the duty of
granting coal-mining leases and otherwise, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
If that is necessary with regard to the mines now in operation, and bearing in mind that the President of the Board of Trade said that the functions of the Commission were to be taken so seriously that they would deal with the safety of the working of coal, involving the lives of the men as well as the proper working of the seams, it would seem to be logical that the Commission should have some definite control over mines that are to be opened during the interim period, and that their permission should be asked as to whether sinking should take place, and where it should take place, and that they should approve everything connected with the proper working of that coal and the general efficiency of the mines. I do not say that there is the possibility of a ramp in this interim period, but there is the possibility at any rate of mines being sunk in places which would perhaps not be approved of by the Commission. Naturally, the manner in which the mine is sunk very often affects the working of the Coal.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I see the hon. Member's point, but the Amendment which we are now discussing deals only with the destination of the rents and profits of the mine itself, and would not affect the sort of control which he has in mind I wonder whether the subject he is raising would not be much more appropriately raised on Clause 9, which deals with the measure of control over the granting of leases in the interim period.

Mr. Lawson: It is true that this Amendment deals with the destination of the rents, but if Clause 8 passes as it is, the rents are assured upon mines that are opened during the interim period, without there being any safeguard concerning the opening of those mines and the consent of the Commission. I do not see any provision in this Clause in which it is laid down that the permission of the Commission will have to be obtained for the opening of a new mine. The main point of the Amendment which I have on the Paper, and with which I wish to deal


now, is to ask the Secretary for Mines what is to be the position of the Commission with regard to the opening of these new mines? Will people be allowed to open a mine, without reference to the Commission, during the interim period of 3½ years? If it is necessary for the Commission to have control over the efficiency of the working of mines now open, it seems to be not less important that they should be consulted before new mines are opened and should have some judgment in the matter of whether a mine should be opened and the general position of the sinking of it. There is not a word in the Clause dealing with the Commission's position in relation to new mines in this period and it would be a help if the right hon. Gentleman were, in the meantime, to make a statement to the Committtee on that subject.

4.31 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment later on the Paper, in which some of my hon. Friends and I are interested, in relation to compensation for subsidence. That Amendment proposes to insert a new Subsection at the end of line 24. If the Amendment now under discussion is carried, line 24 will no longer exist. I wish to know whether the Amendment which we are now discussing can be put in such a way as to safeguard the later Amendment to which I have referred.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment which is now under discussion by the Committee proposes to delete certain words of the Clause and to insert other words in their place. The Amendment to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, will not be affected if the present Amendment is carried. He or his hon. Friends can move to add their words "after the words last added."

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I suggested to the hon. Gentleman opposite that it might be more appropriate to discuss on Clause 9 the point raised by him, because I think that the hon. Member will find the answer to his question in Clause 9. If he examines the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. and learned Friend he will see that paragraph (b), taken, of course, in conjunction with the rules of law and equity, does provide for the manner

in which during the interim period, the owner can dispose of and manage his property. If the hon. Member also looks at Clause 9 he will see that if the owner proposes during the interim period to grant either a new lease or a renewal, he must send a copy of that lease to the Commission. In the case of a new lease—the kind of case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind—if the lease has not been effected with the consent of the Commission, then the owner runs the risk that anything which he does without that consent, may be challenged in the courts by the Commission as being a breach of his duty under Clause 8 and he may be made liable for damages. Through that machinery the Commission will have that measure of control over the opening of new mines, where new leases are granted during the interim period.

Mr. Lawson: But is not that a negative control? Notice has to be given to the Commission, and they are to have some knowledge of what is proceeding. But have they a power of refusal if they think it is not desirable to open a new mine in a particular place? Have they any control over a new mine being opened in this period such as they design to have under Clause 2?

Mr. Stanley: I think the power to which I have referred is very effective when we are dealing with business people who, according to hon. Members opposite, are actuated solely by the motive of profit. Are they going to run the risk of having a claim brought against them by the Commission and of having damages given against them because they would not accept the variations which the Commission suggested? I submit that, in practice, that is a measure of control. Although, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it appears, in theory to be a negative sort of control, in practice the possibility of an action for damages will be an effective deterrent of any misuse of the property, or any use of the property which would be contrary to the wishes of the Commission.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: In spite of the explanations which have been offered, it appears to me that the words of the Clause as originally drafted afford all the protection that is necessary, and I cannot understand why the Attorney-General should have so readily accepted this drastic Amendment


by which practically all the words of the original Clause will be deleted. Nor can I understand why, if the proposed words are so desirable, they were not thought of by the Government and the draftsman when the Bill was being prepared. In all the circumstances, I think it desirable to divide against this Amendment.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Spens: Paragraph (b) is one of the most important parts of the Amendment. It is a protection for the Commission. Under it, a vendor becomes the trustee, to some extent, for the Commission during the interim period and has to look after the property so that he will deliver more or less what he has sold. The rules of law and equity, as regards the obligations of a vendor during the contract period, are clear and definite as regards ordinary surface land and buildings. But in the case of mines which are to continue working, I do not think there is any lawyer who could say with certainty what difficulties may not arise under the rules as to the obligations of the vendor. Our criticism of the Clause as originally drafted was that the exact obligation of the vendor as regards not only maintaining and working the existing mine but also the opening of other mines was left in doubt.
It is true that under Clause 9 the consent of the Commission is required to certain new leases, but it does not seem to go far enough, whereas paragraph (b) of this Amendment establishes the fact that the obligations of the coalowners as vendors, are to be the obligations of prudent owners who intend to remain in possession of the property, and not of owners who are about to sell the property. If during the interim period, any of the owners were guilty of waste in the running and working of the existing mines or in the opening of new mines, or did anything of that sort, the Commission could go to the courts and get an injunction against them for breach of their obligations under paragraph (b). Therefore, I submit that, so far from this Amendment being against the interest which the hon. Gentleman opposite represents, it is in favour of that interest, and it has advantages for all parties, in that it clarifies the position and provides a yardstick with which can be measured what is done during the intervening period.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is an excellent leader, and perhaps it may be necessary on some future occasion to requisition his services. In the Clause as originally drafted the following words occur:
obligations to take due care of, and to repair the said premises.
If the hon. and learned Member looks at the proposed Amendment he will find the words:
no person shall be treated as under obligation to exercise any greater measure of care in relation to any of the said premises than is exercised under the ordinary practice of the management of mineral estates by prudent owners in relation to property that is to continue in their ownership.
Are not those words a serious modification of the original words? Do they not offer a greater measure of relief to the owners, and will not that be detrimental to the Commission?

Mr. Spens: My criticism of the original draft of the Clause was that it simply stated the obligations to take due care of and repair the premises, and provided no sort of yardstick. It was simply left to the rules of law and equity, but I do not think it would be easy to find a yardstick to measure what those obligations would have been under rules of law and equity. This Amendment provides a yardstick. It is that the mines should be carried on and looked after in exactly the same way as a prudent owner would look after them, not if he were about to sell, but if he were about to continue in possession of them. It is a yardstick which is well known to the courts, and concerning which there will be no difficulty, and we think it is a greater protection for the Commission than the vague words of the Clause as originally drafted.

4.43 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: The Attorney-General said that in the case of a new lease it would be necessary to go to the Commission, but that it would not be necessary in the case of an old lease. Suppose a case in which a colliery company owns a coalfield and under their lease sub-let to another company the working of part of the coal. That is really a new lease to the other colliery company, but it comes under the old lease of the original company. What is to be the position in a case like that?

The Attorney-General: That question really arises on the next Clause, and I will deal with it when we reach that point.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Short: I was not satisfied with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade who based his reply entirely on Clause 9. As I understand it, Clause 9 deals with existing leases and with variations and renewals of leases. I asked the Attorney-General whether royalty owners would have to seek the permission of the Commission if they desired to start new mines, and he said if the lease was from the Commission there would be consultation, but if the property was in the ownership of the royalty owners there would be no consultation. The Commission, I understand, have the right to search and bore for coal, but are not entitled to engage in coal mining. Is it possible for them during the interim period to search and bore for coal and, having discovered coal, to lease it? If so, I presume there will be consultation. I should like to ask what powers the Commission have during the interim period regarding the opening of new mines. I mean a new coal mine which presumably falls within the control of the Coal Commission. Perhaps the Attorney-General will be good enough to explain the point.

4.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The Commission have no power to search and bore for coal until after the vesting date. In this Amendment we are solely dealing with the position as between the valuation date and the vesting date. Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I spoke before. What I intended to deal with was a case in which the opening of a new mine involved the granting of a new lease. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 17 (1) he will see that sub-leases are forbidden during this period, so I do not think that question arises. On the other hand, if a new mine can be opened without the granting of a new lease or sub-lease then, whether it can or cannot properly be opened will depend on the words to which my right hon. Friend referred, which are embodied in the new Amendment. The test will be whether a prudent colliery company, dealing with the matter in this period, would open a mine. If they would, then, obviously, it ought to be done, but if they would not, they may find themselves in trouble for having done an act which will render them liable to action at law.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 253.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[4.47 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Adamson, W. M.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.


Barnes, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.


Bevan, A.
Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parker, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Cassells, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton. T. M.


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Lawton, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)




Thorne, W.
Watson, W. McL.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Thurtle, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Tinker, J. J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Walkden, A. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen



Walker, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Errington, E.
Markham, S. F.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Marsden, Commander A.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Everard, W. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fleming, E. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Foot, D. M.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Munro, P.


Balniel, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Partsm'h)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Owen, Major G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Griffith, F. Kingstey (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Peake, O.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gun. H. C. (Newbury)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Pilkington, R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Porritt, R. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Butler, R. A.
Harbord, A.
Radford, E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cary, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hepworth, J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Channon, H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Christie, J. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holdtworth, H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunter, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Salt, E. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandys, E. D.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Craven-Ellis, W.
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord William


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Culverwell, C. T.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


De la Bère, R.
Levy, T.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, W. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, K. M.
Spens. W. P.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Loftus, P. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duggan, H. J.
Lyons, A. M.
Storey, S.


Dunglass, Lord.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Eastwood, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ellis, Sir G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Elmley, Viscount
Magnay, T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emery, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mander, G. le M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, G. C.







Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Turton, R. H.
While, H. Graham
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Wakefield, W. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wragg, H.


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.



Warrender, Sir V.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Wise, A. R.
Captain Waterhouse and Captain


Wayland, Sir W. A
Withers, Sir J. J.
Dugdale.


Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Womersley, Sir W. J.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 111.

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
[4.57 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lindsay, K. M.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Ellis, Sir G.
Lipson, D. L.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Elmley, Viscount
Loftus, P. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emery, J. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Errington, E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Magnay, T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Everard, W. L.
Maitland, A.


Balniel, Lord
Fleming, E. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Foot, D. M.
Mander, G. le M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Furness, S. N.
Marsden, Commander A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gonzoni, Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Brass, Sir W.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mills. Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moreing, A. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen H. C. (Newbury)
Gretton Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Butcher, H. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Munro, P.


Butler, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Cary, R. A.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannah, I. C.
Owen, Major G.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Harbord, A.
Patrick, C. M.


Channon, H.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Peake, O.


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, W. R. D.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Harvey, Sir G.
Petherick, M.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pilkington, R.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Porritt, R. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hepburn, P. G- T. Buchan.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hepworth, J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Radford, E. A.


Cooke, S. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Crooke, J. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cross, R. H.
Hunter, T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Crossley, A. C.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Culverwell, C. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keeling, E. H.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrese)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


De la Bère, R.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Kimball, L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Drewe, C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandys, E. D.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Savery, Sir Servington


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lees-Jones, J.
Scott, Lord William


Duggan, H. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dunglass, Lord.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Lewis, O.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.




Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
White, H. Graham


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Touche, G. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wise, A. R.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Turton, R. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wakefield, W. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Spens, W. P.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wragg, H.


Storey, S.
Warrender, Sir V.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie



Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wayland, Sir W. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wells, S. R.
Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton. T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cassells, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Chater, D.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Davidson. J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Dobbie, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

The Deputy-Chairman: In view of the Amendment which has just been passed, perhaps the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) will move the Amendment on the Paper with the slight alteration of leaving out the reference to Sub-section (2) so that the first line shall read:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (1) of this Section" etc.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add:
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 5ub-section (1) of this Section—

(a) the Commission shall on and from the valuation date be liable in the event of any damage caused to a dwelling-house or to the property of a local authority by subsidence

consequent upon the mining of coal to compensate the owner of such dwelling-house or the local authority in respect thereof;
(b) the amount of such compensation shall be ascertained by the Commission in accordance with regulations to be made by the Board of Trade based upon the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 relating to the assessment and determination of compensation;
(c) the Commission shall ascertain the total amount of such compensation which it shall be liable to pay on or before the vesting date; and
(e) the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Sub-section shall have effect notwithstanding any term express or implied in any contract, deed, or conveyance other than any contract, deed, or conveyance entered into or executed by the Commission."



The object of this Amendment briefly is to secure the payment of compensation for damage caused by mining subsidence. Hon. Members who were present last week during the Debate on the Amendment which sought to compel provision to be made for the prevention of subsidence will agree that considerable light was thrown on this subject by the speeches that were then made. But if those speeches were not sufficient, I would invite hon. Members to pay a visit to any substantial colliery district in the country, where they will find hundreds of mute witnesses of the havoc that has resulted from mining subsidence. Especially if they care to visit the Black Country or the Potteries, they will find hundreds of houses which have lost their shape, the walls of which are at all angles, with front rooms that are in some cases higher than the back rooms and vice versa, where damage has been caused to drains and roads. No matter where one goes, one will find that this is a common condition in mining districts. This, of course, results in considerable loss to the owners of the houses, and loss also to the local authorities of the district because of the necessity for repairing the damage done to their roads.
This is not a local question. It has become almost a national scandal. At any rate, the Government in 1923 apparently considered it to be sufficiently serious to justify the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the effects of mining subsidence, and I find that one of their terms of reference was to inquire into the extent and gravity of the damage caused by mining subsidence. They sat for nearly four years and reported in 1927, and it is interesting to study some of the recommendations which were made by them. First of all, we find a reference in the report to the loss suffered by house-owners. On page 25 of the report, paragraph 37, the Commissioners state that
it is impossible not to be impressed with the seriousness of the actual damage we saw.
It would be possible even to-day to take the Minister, if he would come, and show him the seriousness of the actual damage caused by the subsidence of many working-class houses. In my own constituency this has become a real, live question as a result of the loss which has been occasioned to large numbers of working

men, many of whom have invested all their life savings, perhaps £200 or £300, in purchasing their small houses. Subsequently, a subsidence takes place, and they are faced with the necessity of spending £40, £50, £60, perhaps £100, in order to repair the damage caused by subsidence. The Commission made special reference to small houses, and I am sure the Committee will forgive me if I quote from their report on this aspect of the problem. On page 42 of the report they say:
We do not doubt that very many small houses erected on these unprotected sites in mining areas have been purchased by mine and other industrial workers without due appreciation of the subsidence risk involved. We are not surprised that this should have been so. Even although in a mining area with evidence of subsidence and its consequences on every side, an intelligent worker particularly when buying a house should hardly have been unconscious that the chance that subsidence might in time affect his own purchase was at least a risk however remote it may have seemed. But against this we remember that with him the consideration above all others always is that his house shall be near his work. An unprotected site well placed in that respect is for him better than a protected site elsewhere. We are satisfied that so far as the owners of these small houses are concerned there are existent many cases of genuine hardship, and it is this circumstance which has seemed to most of us alone to justify the recommendation which with reference to existing houses of this type in private ownership we embody later in the report.
They make a recommendation that compensation should be paid to these small house-owners. Later on, in paragraph 92, they say:
Except in relation to small dwelling-houses in private ownership no sufficient case for such interference has, we think, been made in evidence. Even in the case of the site for the small dwellinghouse the landowner may not have been able to sell with right of support or compensation for damage; but he was under no obligation to sell. The other party however had to buy because a house in the area was for him a necessity and the area was limited.
Finally, the Commission recommended that compensation should be paid to certain categories of small house-owners. It is perfectly true that the Commissioners restricted their recommendation to small house-owners and excluded business premises. They restricted the right to compensation to private owners or occupiers of dwellinghouses, wholly or mainly designed for residential purposes, of a gross value of £40 or under. They recommended that compensation should be


paid only where damage was manifest at the time the Act was to become law or became manifest subsequent to the passing of the Act. They recommended also that the damage must be to the permanent structure of the house or its accessories, such as the drainage, water, or lighting system.
Then the question arose whether, where a right to claim compensation existed under the contract under which the owner of the house held title, any right to compensation was to be given in addition to that contractual right. It was recommended by the Commission that where the claim did not exceed £700 the person who suffered damage, even though he might have a right to claim compensation under his contract to purchase, should still have the right to obtain benefit under the procedure recommended by the Commission. The reason for that was that evidence was given before the Commission which showed that in many cases it was impossible for the small owner to take advantage of his contractual right. In my constituency there is an Act of Parliament known as the Pensnett Chase Act, passed in 1784. The mining area of Staffordshire is one of the oldest in the British Isles, and this Act of Parliament contains a Section permitting a claim to be made for compensation in respect of damage from mining subsidence, but for some technical reason the Section has been a dead letter. It has never been found possible to make use of it, and it has been of no assistance whatsoever in the many hundreds of cases where damage has occurred in the area. This point was dealt with by the Commission, which said, in paragraph 122 of their report:
We have so far been dealing only with the cases of damage brought to our notice in which the owner of the surface property has no right of redress against anybody. It was, however, represented to us, on behalf particularly of the small property owner entitled to compensation for his surface damage, that a claimant had frequently a difficulty in prosecuting or making good his claim against, it might be, a powerful' corporation.
That does not only apply to powerful corporations, but to corporations which in economic resources could not be described as powerful, because there are many cases on record where a person with a right to claim compensation has taken action against a local colliery company in a small way of business, the company

has gone into liquidation, and the claimant's right has not, therefore, been worth anything to him. The Commission also said:
There is also, it is said, in many cases a real difficulty for a claimant to make good his claim except at a considerable expenditure of time and money, more indeed of both than an ordinary man can afford. It is also true that in some cases there is a real difficulty in determining the originating cause beneath the surface of the damage done on the surface.
In paragraph 124, the Commission summed up the position by saying:
There are two respects in which, as we think, a degree of assistance need not be withheld. The first is that where the value of the hereditament in respect of which the claim is made does not exceed the sum of £700, the complainant being a private person should at his option have the benefit of the same procedure in all respects as that described in paragraph 121 of this report.
The recommendation was that they should be allowed to exercise this right in the local county court, where it could be done at less expense. The Amendment also asks for compensation for local authorities. I am not in a position to base my claim on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, because the Commission was not prepared to recommend that compensation should be payable to local authorities. We are constrained, however, to include them in our Amendment because we believe that they are in a special position and that it is essential to call attention to the burden that has been imposed on them as a result of mining subsidence. In my constituency many thousands of pounds have been spent by the local authorities, and to-day there are results of mining subsidence, damage to roads and drainage systems, which can only be put right by the expenditure of thousands of pounds. I hope that the Minister will not turn a deaf ear to the suggestions that we have embodied in the Amendment. A case has been clearly proved. There is no dispute as to the fact that much damage has been occasioned in various coal-mining districts as the result of mining subsidence. If that be so, we are merely asking for a reasonable amount of recompense for those who suffer as a result of mining operations.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: This Clause deals with the rights and obligations arising out of contracts for the sale of land, and we want


to make definite what those rights and obligations should be with regard to subsidence. All mining Members can give vivid instances of what is happening in their localities, and those who do not happen to be mining Members, but have mining operations in their divisions, can bear witness of what we seek to remedy by this Amendment. We are attempting to devise some means to prevent damage by subsidence happening. We want to make it imperative on the part of those who work the coal to see that the ground is not lowered. If we can make it imperative that compensation shall be paid, greater attention will be given to trying to keep the land in a fair condition. I have several instances of what has happened in my area. I wrote to my local authorities for information. The Leigh Borough Council writes that in 1935 they spent £585 on the repair of gas mains necessitated entirely by mining subsidence. The expenditure on the repair of water mains for the same reason was £596. That expenditure was merely for repairs. It is not possible to ascertain the amount of loss due to the escape of gas and water. When I was a member of St. Helens Town Council I was on the gas committee, and we had the greatest difficulty in ascertaining the real output of gas because of the leakage in the mains on the way from the gasworks to the consumer, because of the falling of the mains due to subsidence. The annual cost in the last five years for repairs to sewers and the prevention of flooding in my area was £1,940.
I wrote to the Tyldesley Council, which is also in my area, and they inform me that between 1914 and 1924, £24,000 was spent in relaying the main outfall sewer which had been made derelict by mining subsidence. It involved the council and the adjoining authority in litigation, which cost £20,000, in trying to find out who should pay for the damage, and they did not succeed. There was a further expenditure of £1,330 for pumping plant. The works, which were completed in 1924, were seriously damaged, and a further scheme is being prepared to cost upwards of £10,000. Housing sites are difficult to get because of the subsidence and the breaking of the sewers. I went to view certain parts of my constituency. I was told that the damage caused by subsidence created great difficulties for the householders. I went to a housing site in Tyldesley and

entered one of the houses. There were big cracks in the walls running parallel to the street. These had been caused by what is called a fault. The houses had been built on what was thought safe ground on top of the fault, but the coal was worked on each side of the fault and it caused the ground to slip away. The houses were falling with the fall of the ground and parting very seriously. It is difficult to ascertain who can be sued for the damage because it was thought that the ground was satisfactory when it was bought.
One woman had bought two houses close to this site, and they are now almost derelict. She sent me a letter asking what could be done to get her compensation. I was unable to advise her, but I said that there might be an opportunity when we were dealing with the Coal Bill of getting something out of the £66,000,000. I would like to throw that amount into a kitty so that we could obtain some of it for these small householders. We shall not to-day be able to get much satisfaction with our Amendment, but I trust that the Minister will give us a clear insight of what can be done in this direction under this Bill. We ought to know definitely what is the position of the local authorities and of householders whose houses have been damaged, because something ought to be done in the matter. I hope that in future we shall be able to take such steps that subsidence will not occur, or that if it does, there will be only such slight depressions that they will not affect property. That could be done. I am satisfied by clever mining experts—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going back to Clause 2, which dealt with the prevention of subsidence. This Clause has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Tinker: I am afraid you are right, Captain Bourne, but when I get on this subject I can almost see the ground sinking, and for that reason I want steps to be taken to keep it level, and I have been led away. However, I have got to the end of my remarks, and I hope that the passing of the Coal Bill will enable the position to be improved.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Hollins: I want to put in a word for third parties who are interested in compensation for subsidence, and they are


the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health, because those Departments are paying through our local authorities from 20 to 50 per cent. in contributions towards the cost of buildings affected by subsidence. I want to give some figures of the present cost, taking no account of past or future costs. I have received figures from the Town Clerk of my borough to say that buildings in course of construction or for which plans have been approved by the Board of Education or the Ministry of Health will cost us £142,000. I said that I would not refer to the past, but in the near past the Ministry of Health have refused to grant the local education authority any further contribution towards underpinning the Hanley High School. We have already spent £11,000 on underpinning. At first we thought it was going to cost £1,000 or £2,000, but we found more and more cavities, and at last the managers said they would spend no more money on that school. In course of time it must be demolished, and it is estimated that a new school to replace it will cost £60,000. Unfortunately, there is speculative building going on upon sites which have been repeatedly rejected by the Ministry of Health. As has been said by the mover of the Amendment, people have to take those houses or move out tremendous distances in order to get away from anywhere where there may be subsidence. Within two or three months of its being built a great crack has appeared in the front entrance hall of a new house. I suppose that the owner, who may have put down £40 or £50 towards the cost, is wondering whether he should continue with his payments, because the house will become worthless as time passes.
We have heard of the investigation made by the Commission inquiring into the damage through subsidence suffered by property owners for whom there was no remedy, and I hope that now, 10 years after their report, advantage will be taken of this opportunity to do something for those who have suffered such losses. The Secretary for Mines will know that recently deputations have come up from the corporation of my borough, and I understand there is a possibility of a joint deputation from Newcastle-under Lyme and the corporation of my borough, because of the events which were mentioned the other day by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Another thing that

I should like to mention is that we have had to reconstruct half a mile of our main road leading from Hanley to Fenton, raising it by 15 feet—

The Deputy-Chairman: I ought to point out that roads cannot possibly come under this new Clause, as a road cannot be the property of a local authority. Highways are not the property of a local authority, though schools are.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the trunk roads are being taken over as the property of the Ministry of Transport, but I always understood that the second and third-class roads were the property of the highway authority.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is wrong in that belief. The highway authority has a certain right to the surface, but is not the owner of the road. The road is not the property of the highway authority, which is merely the authority entrusted with maintaining the surface.

Mr. Shinwell: May I draw attention to the fact that in many instances these are not roads at all, nor can they be described as streets? They are back lands, waste spaces, over which the local authority exercises supervision in the absence of any other authority.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) was dealing with what I should call classified roads.

Mr. Hollins: I may have used a wrong term in speaking of it as a main road, but it is one of our roads leading through the city. The point that I wanted to make is that it has cost the corporation from £18,000 to £20,000 to reconstruct the road owing to subsidence. Again, we have had to underpin some of our elementary schools, at a cost of many thousands of pounds. In the reconstruction of new schools—there are now half-a-dozen which are either in the course of reconstruction or for which reconstruction plans have been approved—the expenditure will amount to £22,000 for concrete reinforcements. In the case of school clinics, we have two approved and one under construction which will cost £4,000. As I have said, this is a matter of concern not only to the corporation, but to the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health, which make contributions of from 20 to 50 per cent. towards the out


lay. I hope that note will be taken of what has been said in this Debate and that at long last we may get some relief. Great patience has been exercised not only by the Corporation of Stoke but by other corporations which gave evidence before the Commission and have interviewed the Mines Department. Property owners, too, have exercised great patience. I know the case of a man, not too wealthy, who has three cottages on which he has already spent £90, but he will not be able to bring them up to the proper state even then. The depreciation of property which goes on in these areas is a very important side of the case and cannot be expressed in £ s. d. alone, and I hope the Minister will endeavour to implement the recommendations of the Commission.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I should like to say a few words in support of the principle of this Amendment, the case for which has been clearly made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and others. They have quoted the recommendations made by various bodies and have given a number of examples of what is going on, and it is unnecessary for me to add substantially to their observations. I am wondering about one point with which, perhaps, the Minister will deal in his reply, and that is how far the wording of the Amendment may possibly relieve coalowners of obligations which they have at the present time. Subsidence affects a part of the area which I represent, Willenhall. I will give one example of what has been happening. It is an example well known in the Black Country. In the village of Himley there is a public house known as "the crooked house," for very obvious reasons. If you go inside that house, you can see marbles running uphill, for no other reason than that there have been subsidences due to coal mines. I desire to repeat that this Amendment, in whatever form may be regarded as most suitable, ought to be added to the Bill, because it only carries out the recommendation of inquiries which were held years ago.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) read extracts from the report of the Commission which investigated mining subsidences. I can remember when a number

of members of that Commission, including the chairman, visited the town in which I live and saw some of the damage created by underground workings. I do not know of a single street in the town which has not been affected by underground workings. I live in a house which must be at least 18 inches out of plumb; there is not a level floor in it. That is due to the fact that we did not get the "sit down," like other streets in the town. Living near the boundary between one colliery company and another we got the "coup." The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) talked about a certain public house in which marbles run uphill. They would have some difficulty in running uphill in the house in which I live.

Mr. Mander: What I meant was that they appear to run uphill.

Mr. Watson: Neither in appearance nor in reality would they run uphill in the house in which I live; and they would only appear to run uphill in that public house if those who were there had been there for a considerable time. The town in which I live is not peculiar, in respect of subsidence. There is hardly one large-sized town in West Fife not affected by subsidence, and villages as well as towns have been more or less ruined by underground workings.
The members of the Commission who visited the town, before the report was prepared, saw the subsidence that had recently taken place. If there had been a Commission sitting every year for the last 20 years, they could have come to the town in which I live and seen something new every year. Our local authority, in common with other local authorities, built houses under the various Housing Acts. Will hon. Members believe that some of their new houses are more or less in ruins already, as a result of underground workings? I go from the Fife side of the Forth to the other side, to East and Midlothian. I have seen new houses shored up in East Lothian, although they were built in comparatively recent years.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now following the example of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in repeating speeches made on Clause 2. This Amendment deals, not with subsidence, but with compensation for it.

Mr. Watson: I am trying to show that there is need for compensation, and I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in pleading for local authorities and private individuals who have suffered in the past. Their property has been practically destroyed. In some of the streets in my town the houses had to be taken down and rebuilt, after the ground had sunk. Not only do local authorities come into the matter, but so do private companies. There is a gas company in our town which has been put to a considerable expenditure year after year and not during any particular year. The company has had to make many renewals because of damage done to gas pipes by underground subsidence.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment, which is limited to compensation for damage to the property of local authorities. No company comes into this matter. There are many Amendments to be called, and I ask hon. Members to confine their remarks to the Amendment which is under discussion.

Mr. Watson: I want to observe your Ruling, Captain Bourne, and not go outside the scope of the Amendment. I was only saying that, in addition to private individuals and local authorities, private companies had suffered on account of subsidence, not on one occasion but repeatedly, year after year. Since I came back to the House at the last General Election, I have had to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that we had a very fine school. It was the best building in the village and belonged to the education authority. It was a fine, red, freestone building, but it has been damaged over and over again as a result of underground working. Within the last 18 months, that fine building has had to be tied together with steel ties to keep it up, in addition to being shored from the outside. I do not suppose that that building will ever be in a thoroughly satisfactory condition again, no matter what the county council and the new education authority may do with it. I suppose it requires to be taken down and rebuilt before it can be in satisfactory condition once again.
Not only have new houses belonging to local authorities been ruined by underground workings, but schools, water

mains, and all sorts of public services. I hope that the Minister will agree to some compensation for local authorities and private individuals who have suffered damage and loss as a result of subsidence. I have no desire to go outside the boundaries of the Amendment, but I would add my plea to those that have already been made. I know what subsidence means; I have not lived practically all my life in a town where subsidence has been going on almost continuously for 20 or 30 years, without knowing the damage that is done to public and private property. I ask the Minister to make sure, in this new Measure, that individuals and public authorities who have suffered in this way will be compensated for the damage done to their property.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I wish to add something further to what the previous speaker has said. No one could have lived in a mining district without having witnessed the distressing experiences of people who have put practically the whole of their earnings into cottage property, only to find the property practically destroyed as mining operations take place. There can hardly be any Member of the Committee who has lived in a mining district and has not had that experience, and who has not this aspect of the matter prominently in his mind. This applies particularly in places where the coal seams are not very far below the surface.
I want to relate one experience which I think will bring home to the Committee the need for action to be taken to provide compensation for these property owners and for local authorities. I have in mind the locality of Blaenavon, where, in 1914, the urban district council went to an expenditure of about £30,000 or £40,000 in the erection of dwelling houses for the workpeople of the district. At that time, there were 80 acres of coal round about the site on which those houses were built. In the post-war period, the company there had to determine whether or not the 80 acres of coal were to be worked. Consultations took place between the local council and the company as to whether the council would be in a position to pay the company compensation for not working those 80 acres of coal. It was far beyond the financial power of the urban district council to do so, and consequently the 80 acres of coal were worked.
The result is that nearly every one of those houses is in such a condition as to make them almost unfit for occupation. I have heard some of the people say that there are cracks in the houses through which you can see from one end of the street to the other and that wind, rain, and snow go into the houses. You will find that nearly every house is shored up with timber, which is the only way in which they can be kept up. That urban district council, with a rate at the present time well in excess of 20s. in the £, were not in a position to compensate the company for not working the coal, and are not in a position to re-erect the cottages. Loans have been incurred, with the sanction of the Ministry of Health, and the local authority still has obligations to the people with whom those loans were contracted.
That story illustrates the difficulty. If similar cases arise in the future, the Coal Commission will have no power under the Bill to compensate a local authority or to take any action to prevent such an occurrence. That is an impossible state of affairs. We have seen so much destruction brought about by subsidence that we have to decide either to work the coal or to compensate the owners of the properties. I hope that the Minister will agree to the insertion of this proposal, or of something to the same effect, in order to give owners of property protection in the future. If the Minister could see for himself the case which I have cited, it would convince him of the need for something of a definite character to be done. I hope that the Amendment will be agreed to.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: It is strange, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it, that it should be left for the Members on this side of the Committee to ask for compensation for loss of property. We hear much from the other side of the House on this question of compensation. Last night I heard an hon. Member trying to make the point that the attitude of the Opposition on this question of compensation for damage to property was doubtful, and that the electors would want to know just where we stood on the question. An hon. Member on the Front Bench below the Gangway seemed to believe that he was playing havoc with the Labour party on this question. Where is he now? Where

are all the other hon. Members, now that it is a question of compensation for loss of property? Why are hon. Members on that side so concerned about it on one occasion and have no concern about it on another? The simple reason is that they are concerned with the big property owners, and they do not care for the principle at all when it is related to small property owners.
I want the Minister, in his reply, to consider the position of the small property owner, the man who has his house ruined and his property taken away from him, to all intents and purposes. I want him to consider also the local authority, which represents the great mass of poor people in its area. Those poor people have to pay the costs associated with subsidence. Hon. Members on the other side are not very much concerned with such matters, but they come here and argue for compensation for royalty owners. What do they tell us? Do they present before us the case of the Duke of Northumberland? No. With tears in their voices they tell us about the poor widow or the poor miner who has a few pounds invested in royalties and who is to be robbed of due compensation. How often do we have such arguments in this House. We are told how the widow and the poor miner have bought a house; have hon. Members on this side no concern for the poor widow and the miner who have spent their hard-earned savings?
If the Government took over the mines completely, together with the whole mining industry, as should be done, and decided, without concern for anybody, to exploit the coal beds in this country, they might exploit a great coal bed underneath a great country house; and if subsidence occurred and that great country house started splitting and allowing the rain and wind to come in, as is the case in the houses which have been mentioned, you would hear from the benches opposite a holloa for compensation that would shake the heavens themselves. That is where the big people are concerned. Whether they are justly entitled to compensation or not, hon. Members opposite will use the widow and the poor miner to get compensation for them.
This is a question which affects all kinds of working men and women, and people like small shopkeepers and small


business people, who are continually put to expense to keep their houses standing in a condition that will allow them and their families to live there. The local authorities also are affected in the same way. When they build new houses and have to keep them in order, they have to get the money from somewhere. Is is to come from the ratepayers, or are they to receive compensation? In one part of my area the situation is so bad that the local authority is talking about building wooden houses. These people's property is being destroyed by digging away its foundations and disfiguring in an appalling manner the beautiful country around, and we should see to it that, wherever this evil thing is done, compensation is paid, so that not only may these working men and women, professional people and small business people, be insured against the damage that is done, but also the local authorities, so that by this means the beauty of the countryside may be saved from destruction.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I rise to add two points to what has been said. I am sure there will be no disagreement in any part of the Committee as to the facts, which have been established and admitted. The removal of coal does cause subsidence, and very few will argue that compensation ought not to be paid. I anticipate that, when the Secretary for Mines replies to the Debate, he will say he agrees that the facts are established, and probably that compensation ought to be paid, but he will probably say that this is not the source from which it ought to come. I cannot imagine him taking any other ground. He cannot deny the facts, and he cannot deny that compensation should be paid, because in that case he would be flying in the face of the recommendation of the Commission. Therefore, he will probably take the line—unless he is going to accept the Amendment, but as he has not spoken we may assume that he will oppose it—that the Coal Commission is not the body which ought to pay the compensation.
The Commission is entering into a very valuable property, the working of which is responsible for the problem with which we are dealing. In very many leases at present compensation is provided for, because it has been understood

that the owners of the coal obtain revenue from its working, and that the working of the coal causes damage to property on the surface. In many instances that has been considered to be a proper charge on the colliery owner or the royalty owner.
In my district it is peculiarly appropriate that the Coal Commission should meet compensation claims. I well remember my father and mother having a consultation as to whether or not they should buy the freehold of their cottage. All the coal had been worked from under the land long before, and hundreds of thousands of pounds had been received for it. During the War the landlord, having taken out the kernel, wanted to sell the shell, that is to say, the land. The agent of the landlord—a large landlord, Lord Tredegar—persuaded our people that it would be a good thing to buy the freehold, which was now, of course, not of much value, and I remember my father and mother putting their heads together and borrowing £40 to buy the freehold, because they had the idea that then it would be theirs, although it was practically theirs already, because they had a 99 years lease. They thought it would be better to be the owners rather than the leaseholders, so they paid up to Lord Tredegar and got a few square yards of land with their cottage. Lord Tredegar, having received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the land underneath, invested the money in War Stock, and is drawing a handsome revenue in perpetuity. It would, therefore, seem to me to be quite appropriate that the Coal Commission should pay, even though, in consequence of their payment, they will not be able to reduce the royalties to the miners as they might otherwise do. I may add that, after buying their house, my father and mother had to pay more money still, because, on account of the empty space left under the house, subsidence started, and the house slowly collapsed, so that, having bought the freehold, we had to spend our spare evenings in putting up timber to keep up the roof of the house.
I have seen streets in my district that were indistinguishable from roadways underground, except that they had the heavens above them, with ordinary pit props and walings to keep up the roofs of the parlours and kitchens, and with the houses shored up outside. South


Wales is full of ornaments of this kind, due to subsidence. It seems to be perfectly proper that the Coal Commission should be charged with compensation for damage done to private houses. But, although it is included in our Amendment, I am not going to argue that it would be proper to charge the Coal Commission with compensation for damage to public property. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has, however, explained that this is the only opportunity we have of calling public attention to that part of the problem, and that is why it is included in the Amendment. We wish to argue on the Amendment the general principle of compensation.
There is an instance in my constituency which is now before the Ministry of Transport. A road has collapsed between one village and another, and it is costing the Glamorgan County Council £60,000 to construct another road. The cost will probably be £100,000 before it is completed. That is a direct consequence of subsidence. I do not doubt that it would be an excessive charge to put upon the Coal Commission that they should pass on to their leaseholders the cost of repairing damage of that kind, because, if the industry had to pay for all the damage done to public property in the coal areas, the charge on the industry would be wholly excessive. In this case we should be relieving the taxpayer, at the expense of the coal industry, of an expenditure of £60,000, and I am sure my hon. Friends would not carry the Amendment to the point of insisting that the coal industry should find £100,000 for the construction of a road in order that £60,000 might be saved to the Exchequer. We wish, however, to draw attention to the damage that is done to public property in this way, so that we may get from the Minister, if he will give it, some sort of assurance that by some means out of national funds local authorities in these districts will be helped to meet this problem.
With regard to damage to private property, it is obvious that that is a charge first of all on the Coal Commission. Damage to public property falls with special hardship on the authorities in our area, because those authorities are almost invariably situated in a Special Area. Hon. Members in the House from time to time stress the position of local authorities in

the Special Areas, and I think it could easily be proved that the expenditure which local authorities in those districts have to meet over and above the expenditure falling upon other local authorities, due to damage to property, far exceeds any amount that is found by the Special Commissioner in those areas. There is, therefore, a case for exceptional treatment.
Suppose you have two local authorities, one in the South of England, we will say, and one in Wales or Durham; both have the responsibility of giving public services of various kinds to their citizens, but upon the local authorities in the coal area there falls a very special burden, directly consequent on the fact that a great national asset is being mined in that area from which the country as a whole derives great commercial benefit. It seems to me, therefore, that if in the obtaining of that asset the property of the local authority suffers exceptional damage, there is a case for exceptional treatment, and it would be a very considerable contribution to the problem of the Special Areas if some means could be devised by which, from some national source, funds could be accumulated for compensation to local authorities for damage done to their property. I wanted to say that, because there might otherwise be some misunderstanding about this question of compensation for public property.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does my hon. Friend not think that if the obligation were placed upon the Coal Commission to pay compensation to public bodies for any damage done by subsidence, that would compel the coalowners themselves to take preventive measures?

Mr. Bevan: The point was made in the Debate yesterday that we want to give to the Coal Commission special powers for taking precautions against subsidence. That is perfectly true, but I believe it would be admitted by my hon. Friend—and that is why I am making the point—that you might take special precautions against subsidence, and, even so, it would not deal with the position where subsidence had already occurred and where it is now made manifest as a direct consequence of past mining. This does not deal with the future leases. It is not restricted to subsidence in areas where new leases are given; it deals specifically with subsidence caused by the working of coal, but I know of no method of determining


whether subsidence is due to coal worked before, or coal worked after, the valuation date. If my hon. Friend can make that distinction, I shall be delighted, but he knows that it is impossible to do so Coal may have been worked 20 or 30 years ago, and subsidence may become evident after the valuation date. So I think my hon. Friend's interruption was not quite pertinent.
I understand also that the statement was made by the Mover of the Amendment that he desired to call attention to damage suffered by property owners. It is not, I am sure, his contention that the coal industry should be charged with the responsibility for compensation for property damaged by that cause, because, if so, the cost would be colossal. What we desire to call attention to is the fact that the finances of this Bill are wholly unreasonable, and we are, within the finances of the Bill, compelled to call attention to this matter. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that, in the first place, some compensation is going to be paid to owners of cottages in those areas, and then, that some means will be found to assist the Coal Commission, or some other authority, to obtain money from national sources to assist in providing compensation for damage caused to public property.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I am entirely in sympathy with the object of this Amendment. There is no doubt that where damage is caused there should be compensation. That applies equally to private property and to the buildings of public authorities. It may be that you should be a little bit more careful in regard to your examination of claims by public bodies, but the principle is the same, although there may be a little more hardship in the case of an individual. I agree with what my hon. Friend has in mind, but it is rather important that the Committee should understand what he is trying to do. I am a little concerned as to whether this Amendment does carry out what my hon. Friend wants. Clause 8 is the first of the Clauses which appears under the sub-title, "Transitional Provisions," and as regards it there is a reference in the margin:
Rights and obligations arising from contracts for sale to have effect in respect of interim period.

I know that one is not bound by a subtitle, or even by what is in the margin, in the interpretation of the Bill, but they are both very helpful to hon. Members in trying to understand what is the proposal which we are discussing. The Clause which we are discussing is only concerned with the transitional period. Bearing that in mind, would the Committee be good enough to look at the first part of the Amendment, which says:
The Commission shall on and from the valuation date be liable in the event of any damage. …"?
That does not limit the liability of the Commission to any period. It means that, from the passing of this Act, the Commission shall for ever be liable to pay compensation. It is important to remember that, and to remember also paragraph (c), which says that the Commission shall ascertain
the apportionment of rents and profits and of liabilities accruing partly before and partly after the vesting date.
How are you to reconcile those two things? I point this out to the Committee, not for the purpose of attacking the Amendment, because I support it, but to enable the Committee to arrive at an understanding of what is proposed. Another point is this: It is the case that in many instances there is now contradistinction between the landowner and the colliery company. The company has to bear any responsibility for damage by subsidence. Is it suggested that they should be relieved of that responsibility, and that the responsibility should go to the Coal Commission? I do not think that is what my hon. Friend means.
Let me come back to the question of public authorities. I have already said that, in justice, there is no difference between the public authority and the individual. I think there is very great difference in the application of that principle as it is proposed. Is it to be suggested that responsibility for subsidence is to be permanently placed on the Coal Commission? There are Amendments on the Order Paper, some of which I shall support, which suggest that, in the event of the Coal Commission having a surplus, that surplus should be used for the benefit of the miners. Is it suggested that the surplus income of the Coal Commission is to be imperilled by taking away something to compensate public authorities for subsidence? I do not think


that is what my hon. Friend has in mind. It seems to me that the Amendment contains a real threat to what hon. Members above the Gangway and I have in mind in regard to what may be done with the surplus income in future. I have only been attacking the Amendment for the purpose of clearing it up. If it goes to a Division, I shall support it, because I think the best way is to get it readjusted on the Report stage.

6.28 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken dealt with the Amendment from the point of view of principle. Some of the other speeches which have been made raised the Amendment above the question of principle. I certainly agree in one respect with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. As I read the Amendment, it will mean that compensation for subsidence—whether existing before the valuation date or subsequent to that, I am not quite clear—would have to be added up under paragraph (c) before the vesting date, and then presumably distributed. But the Amendment does not say so. Therefore, this Amendment is certainly not one that I can recommend to the House in any way. This whole problem was discussed last week to a certain extent, and there is no doubt that a great deal of damage has been done in different parts of the country through mining subsidence. No one is denying the general facts which have been adduced in the discussion so far, but I cannot possibly suggest that a proper way of meeting the position would be for the Commission to take over a liability of this kind when it lies somewhere else. It is a most extraordinary argument that a purchaser should be liable to various charges on a property before he even gets the property; and that is what is inherent in this Amendment.
Look at what the general situation is with regard to this problem. Generally speaking—there may be exceptions for particular reasons—the damage from subsidence now falls either upon the worker of the coal, the colliery undertaking, or the owner of the coal property, the royalty owner. It falls on one or the other, depending upon the respective rights that they have under their leases and the rights of the person who either causes or suffers damage. That is the

general basis upon which the law now stands. The policy of the Bill in this matter is to preserve the existing rights as between the working of the coal and the damage to the surface where those rights have already been clearly determined. As to the future, when the question has not yet arisen at all, the position under the Bill is stated in the Second Schedule. Naturally the Commission would pass on the responsibility through the leases which it created so that for the damage and to the extent there outlined, the colliery undertaking would be responsible. That is how the matter stands and what the policy of the Bill really is.
It would be quite impossible to accept for the Commission any fresh liabilities now before it came into possession of the property on the vesting date. Where the liability rests now is only being determined. I think that we might, with the permission of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, brush it aside as not being capable of execution anyhow. He has it in mind that the Commission ought forthwith to accept liabilities which already he on somebody else. To that extent, to relieve the colliery undertaking, which by a lease was already in the position of having to pay damage, if necessary, would be quite an intolerable strain upon the Commission and outside anything that they could reasonably do. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who touched upon one of the difficulties inherent in that proposal, used the phrase, "As to money, we are left high and dry." The Commission would certainly be left high and dry because it would not have any money at all until the valuation date. It is not until after the vesting date that it begins to get any income, and it gets that income through the moneys received on existing leases. However desirable or otherwise it might be for the whole question of subsidence to be tackled, it seems to me that this Amendment possibly indicates—I think that that is what the hon. Member has in mind—that where at present it is impossible to determine where the liability has rested, the Coal Commission, which is to be a statutory body dealing with property in coal, shall assume that liability. That is what I would like to make quite clear.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Could not an instruction be given to the Commission to see that in future no further damage is done to property without compensation?

Captain Crookshank: That does not arise on this Amendment. We discussed that matter exhaustively the other day. We are dealing here with an Amendment which suggests that, as from the valuation date, the Commission should be liable to compensation for damage and should pay it out before the vesting date. That is a somewhat narrow point incapable of achievement, and it would not achieve the object which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Jenkins: The object is very clear and desirable from everybody's point of view, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake, even if the Amendment does not meet the case, to introduce some Clause on the Report stage that would make provision for compensation to the owners of damaged property?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, because I said that, generally speaking, the law is now that the damage falls either upon the worker of the coal or the owner of the coal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or on no one at all."] Those are exceptional cases. That is the general law with regard to damage, and it is well-established. There may be a number of exceptional cases where it has been impossible to find out exactly where the liabilities are, but that is a problem quite apart from this one or from the functions of the Commission administering this property when it comes into possession of it. Whether or not that is a thing which is desirable, the House of Commons and Parliament generally could take up on some other occasion; it is not for me to say. They are quite beside the scope of what we are proposing to do in this Bill as regards the landlords. I have already explained what the law is under the Bill, and we shall come to discuss that in greater detail later. In certain cases property owners would be able to claim compensation, but that is quite a different problem from the other issues which the Mover of the Amendment raised by quoting a great number of paragraphs from the report of the Royal Commission on Subsidence. That is entirely a different problem and certainly has nothing in the world to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: In the event of its being a contract between the landowner and the landlord when the landlord himself is responsible for damage to property, will the Coal Commission have that responsibility

in the future, and, if so, will the Coal Commission be liable to one sufferer from the damage and not liable to another?

Mr. Gallacher: This is a very important item. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is not desirable after the valuation date that the Commission should take over the responsibility for damage caused by subsidence. He also says that as the law stands at the moment those who are affected by subsidence have a claim if they can locate liability. Does it not follow then, that the people who are affected by subsidence at the time of the valuation date are prevented, as a result of the Commission taking over, from getting their claim considered? If the Commission is to take over the assets, surely, it takes over the liabilities and has the responsibility. Who is to be liable for damage caused by subsidence?

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that we are all very interested in the attention which the representative of the Communist party is giving to the rights of private property.

Mr. Gallacher: I am concerned with the small man and not with the big man.

Captain Crookshank: The short answer is, that when the Commission is substituted for the existing owners it takes over their obligations, and that would follow. That, I think, is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment raised a great many problems arising out of the Royal Commission's report on this subject, and my answer to that, on behalf of the Government, is, that a great number of these problems are quite outside the ambit of the question which we are discussing here. Whether Parliament may wish to deal with them on some other occasion, I do not know, but they do not come under this Bill. I have tried to explain what the policy of the Bill is, and, in any case, this Amendment could not possibly be acceptable, because it does not either do what the hon. Gentleman wants to do or do anything which, in our view, can possibly be thought reasonable.

6.40 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has replied for the Government has entered, as I expected,


a complete negative against all that we aimed at in this Amendment. We are claiming on the question of principle that the Coal Commission shall, on and from the valuation date, be liable for damage due to subsidence to house property owners or to local authorities. That is the broad principle that is raised in this Amendment. The particular date from which that liability should start, and what should be done in the case of contracts already entered into, are immaterial. The main thing is that responsibility should, in the normal case, rest upon the Coal Commission, just as at present responsibility in a normal case depends upon the common law right of support. That is a broad principle. The details in the rest of the Amendment may perfectly well be altered, but we on these benches stand upon the broad principle that in future there should be compensation for damage of this sort. We base our chief claim for that compensation upon the fact that the Coal Commission can, if it will, prevent damage from subsidence hereafter by seeing that repacking takes place in the pits. We base our contention upon the practicability of that method and also upon fundamental justice. Here is the case of a Bill shortly to become the law whereby you compensate, to the tune of £66,000,000, the owners of unworked coal underground. Compensate them, and you should also compensate the people who suffer from the effects of the getting of that coal.
It is remarkable that we have had a Debate upon a subject of justice to the property owners, which has been supported by speech after speech from the Socialist and Communist Members of this House. They have become the principal supporters of justice to small property owners. Not one single voice has been raised by Members opposite in favour of justice for these people. Why? Because they are concerned most with justice to the coal lessees, who, under this Bill, become a monopoly. It is a most surprising thing. When the Division is taken, I hope that the country will realise that we are standing for justice for small men, just as much as they fight for justice for the coal barons. Look at this question from the point of view of practicability. Here you are providing £66,000,000 of compensation for the

royalty owners; is it not only fair that you should provide compensation in future for the small man? If you take on that liability for the Coal Commission, obviously the Commission will be in a position to pass on the liability in the contracts which they make. When they make a new lease they will either get a higher royalty in order to cover the loss for compensation for damage, or they will take a lower royalty, under the terms of which they will have to refund to the Coal Commission the damage done by the working of that particular pit.
It seems to me that that gets round the difficulty whether the damage is to fall on the owner of the royalties, the Coal Commission, or upon the worker of the mine. The Secretary for Mines argues again and again that the responsibility to-day falls either upon the lessee or the owner of the minerals. That is not the case. In the majority of cases it is completely uncertain whether there is any liability on either. It is because of the uncertainty which arises, principally from the cost of fighting a case up to the House of Lords which makes it prohibitive to the small man to get justice that the Amendment is put forward in order to have a law applicable to all for the future. In future leases you can make arrangements to apply to everybody.
This uncertainty was recognised by the Royal Commission which sat a dozen years ago and made certain recommendations, which have not been acted upon. But this uncertainty is becoming daily more dangerous and more trying to owners of property, because the damage is increasing year after year. Now is the time when the Government can and ought to put it right for the future. We base ourselves on the broad principle that it is just. Also it is contra bonos mores, contrary to public morals, that you should give to coal lessees the right to destroy other people's property. Everybody knows that the small man cannot choose where he shall live and is probably too ignorant to know whether the piece of land he has bought is unsupported or sound. We propose to lay down the law for the future that damage done by mining to house property and the property of local authorities shall be compensated for. The damage can be stopped by packing; and to my mind the Amendment is not only sound, but one


which every hon. Member who believes in the sanctity of private property should support.
The Bill makes the position of the small man worse, not better. It makes his position worse in three directions. In the first place, the action to be brought will not be brought against a company but against the Coal Commission, that is the State, and it is not easy to sue a national body like the Coal Commission for damages. In the second place, the right of a holder of an existing lease to cause damage without paying compensation is extended indefinitely after such lease expires, until all coal is got. In the third place, the position of the surface owner is made substantially worse. Even where there has been no mining hitherto. Even where the owner of the property is at present the owner of the minerals, he will not get compensation for subsidence unless he spends large sums of money in putting rafts under the houses and takes other unnamed precautions which may be forced upon him by the Coal Commission. For all these reasons, because the Bill makes the position of the owner of small property worse, because there is such uncertainty as to who has the right to claim damages, and from whom; and because it is against public well-being that private property should be destroyed by the legal activities of others, I shall vote in favour of the Amendment and against a Bill which perpetuates such injustices.

6.50 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has completely misrepresented the Amendment and also the views of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We are not debating a question of principle. We are voting on a specific Amendment which deals with contracts in existence and liabilities which will be taken over by the Commission, which may have to deal with certain possessions which are not defined by the law and it may have to deal with certain hard cases. As to the first point, we do not wish our liabilities to be changed from ourselves to the Commission; as to the second point, that can only be determined by the law; and as to the third point, this is not the time or the occasion to discuss the question of hard cases. When they are discussed in the proper place many

of us will be found in the same position as hon. Members opposite. As far as the Amendment is concerned, it places all obligations existing to-day, and which may exist in the future, on the Coal Commission, and for that I cannot possibly vote, nor can many of my hon. Friends.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have at last heard one supporter of the Government speak on the Amendment, but only after he has heard the answer of the Secretary for Mines, and that discounts the generous phraseology of his last few words. The Secretary for Mines said that the Coal Commission was not a kind aunt going round the country. He has made it clear that as far as the property owners are concerned he and the President of the Board of Trade are prepared, this being the pantomime season, to play the part of the wicked uncles and not leave a robin to collect a few leaves to lay on the dead bodies which they have abandoned to the cold world. I must make it clear that this is a problem which is not confined to the Black Country and South Wales. I have received many communications from small property owners in my constituency who are concerned about this matter and who think that the opportunity ought to be taken to deal with their position. I can understand the Secretary for Mines saying that it is not a workable Amendment and then giving some indication of practical sympathy on the part of the Government. It is no uncommon thing for them to say that it is not the right form of words and that they will endeavour to put in suitable words which will cover the point. There was no indication, however, on the part of the Minister that the Government had more than a purely academic interest in this question. I hope we shall get support from all hon. Members who feel that this matter, in a famous phrase, "brooks no delay."

6.54 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I am in a difficulty in regard to this Amendment, because it is moved in connection with a Clause which is headed "Transitional Provisions," and I suppose the Amendment, if carried, will lapse when the transitional period is over. It is rather difficult to know exactly where we are in discussing the Amendment. As to the general principle of compensation, there is no hon. Member who does not feel disturbed and depressed at the results


of mining throughout the country. I do not know any more moving passages in the report about the distressed areas than those which give graphic details of the trend of mining subsidences in our colliery districts. There are two parties to be considered, the colliery owner and the landlord. If the colliery owner has contracted to pay the damages, then the Amendment means that the Commission will take over the liabilities of the colliery owner. There is the other side, that as the Commission will take the place of the landowner, it stands to reason that they will take over not merely the assets but the liabilities of the landlord, and it is upon that point that I have put down a later Amendment to the Bill.
I admit that the discussion which is now taking place has somewhat circumscribed my opportunities in regard to that Amendment upon which I hope to raise this point, but I think it is necessary to emphasise with all the force we can that the Commission must face the liabilities of the landowners of coal and meet to the full compensation in the matter of subsidences. I am intervening now to protect my interest in my later Amendment. I represent the mother town of the Potteries, about which we have heard so much to-day. I remember engaging a hall for the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and when making the contract for that meeting I had to promise that we would keep our mouths shut as to the real condition of the building. And the right hon. and gallant Member thundered forth, wholly unconscious of the fact that the roof might come down upon him at any moment. But Providence protected him and me. The point is that the corporation has paid vast sums to try to keep the building up with iron and steel bindings running across it.
Right round Burslem, which has been made famous in history by Arnold Bennett, if any Member likes to come with me I will show him streets which he would believe had been under the cannon shot of an invader the day before, with subsidences all round the place. But we all know what the conditions are, and it is only painting the lily to add harrowing details. What I am doing by intervening is to stress the point that the liabilities now held by the landowner will pass to the Commission, and it will be

our business on all occasions to sustain that liability after the vesting date and demand that some compensation should be chargeable to the Commission for the depredations which mining has brought about.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As one of the few Members who have sat here throughout the Debate, I want to express my surprise at the attitude that the Minister has taken up. I am not one of those who attend to their own business in the afternoon and come to the House of Commons in the evening. I believe our work here is sufficient to warrant Members being in attendance the whole day. Going home with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on Friday, he said he did not think we should get anything out of this. I said that the National Government represented small property owners as well as large, and in view of the fact that property owners' associations and municipal bodies were sending in resolutions asking for this matter to be dealt with, they would probably be prepared to consider our plea with regard to compensation. My hon. Friend has been proved right, and I have been proved wrong. It is obvious that the Government and their supporters have no sympathy with suffering caused as the result of mining subsidence. The Amendment was drawn up by competent Members of our party. [Interruption.] I said that provocatively in order to draw what I have evidently drawn. I do not claim to be a master of drawing up Amendments of this kind, but there are Members of our party who are. But, even if there are weaknesses in this Amendment, there was nothing to prevent the Minister accepting the principle of compensation and agreeing to re-word it on Report.
The Minister said it was very difficult to assess liability and that it was only possible to do it in exceptional cases. We who know the people who are suffering from these difficulties in the mining areas know that, generally speaking, it is not difficult to see where the liability should lie. The average householder has no means whatever of obtaining justice when suffering from the effects of subsidence. I have had experience of getting into the hands of the legal people, and the working class have had experience of it in their workmen's compensation claims—being carried about from one


place to another, letters coming here and letters going there, and all the time costs going up. The people are sick of this kind of thing. They realise that they cannot get justice while the law is as it is with regard to subsidence. We are supported in our plea for the right of compensation by the Royal Commission which reported in 1927. They said it was impossible not to be impressed by a visit to the mining areas, and they went on:
The totality is a serious burden which no effort should be spared to remove. Householders have a case for compensation.
Yet the Government which is proposing to compensate wealthy royalty owners to the extent of £65,000,000 is not prepared to adopt the same principle in the case of the poor people who are suffering as the result of subsidence.
What is the attitude adopted by the Government going to mean in the area which I represent? Subsidence has a very serious effect upon the maintenance of roads, the charge for which comes out of the income of the municipalities. In addition, they are proposing to construct 1,100 houses in this district, which is suffering as the result of the housing shortage and as the result of subsidence to an extent that no other district in the country is doing. They will have to incur an additional cost of £34 per house in respect of precautions to be taken against subsidence. Is it fair that the cost of those precautions should be laid at the door of this small group of people when the whole country is benefiting from the coal that is to be taken from the bowels of that particular district? The extra cost must be reflected in the economic rent of the houses.
Some of us are heartily sick of the legal quibbling that takes place on questions of this kind. There is only one right approach to it. Is it just, is it fair, is it reasonable to expect poor people living in areas of this kind, who have scraped and saved in order to purchase their houses, whose children have gone short of clothes and food, to pay for the cost of repairs as the result of subsidence? Although up to the present not one supporter of the Government has got up to support this principle, we still hope that some of them will be prepared to follow us into the Lobby in order to justify their claim to represent not only the monopolists

and the big property owners, but also the small property owners in these areas.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: No excuse is necessary for carrying on the discussion from this side. The attitude of the Minister in offering no hope of adequate compensation is one of amazing reaction. One can scarcely believe that the Government, which sooner or later will have to face the electorate, can be parties to such reaction. He says it is well established in law that those who suffer from mining subsidences may be compensated, but he knows, or ought to know, that such compensation in the ordinary way is not paid. May I quote from a letter from a colliery company in my own district?
We may say that we have at all times worked out the coal under the lands belonging to this estate without leaving support for the surface, and we have at no time paid compensation for any damage to buildings which have been erected on this estate.
I know from personal experience that the gables of houses have fallen down and houses have been made completely untenable, and yet under the terms of the leases there is no remedy at law for these people. The sooner we have some safeguard for those suffering from this state of affairs, the better. The district from which I come being a purely mining area, the miners have shown, I should almost say a singular phase of weakness in desiring to become the owners of their houses. I have inquired why they made this form of investment. Some said they thought it was a good way to invest the little money that they had scraped together. Others did so in order to get better accommodation than that provided by the colliery company, and it would have to be very inferior if it was not superior to that in the ordinary way. A very important point that some of them emphasised was security of tenure, but if there had been an abundance of municipal houses, scarcely any of these miners would have purchased, because under municipal housing they can have security of tenure for themselves and those who come after them.
I have also heard it said that the law is in a shockingly bad state. There is in the Consett area an association, having 800 members, which was formed very largely to secure mutual protection against damage by subsidences. A very large number of members of that association


are miners who own their houses. The case of Manly v. Burn was fought in the courts some little time ago. That was a case of an owner-occupier, and the deeds gave a right to compensation, which was singular, but the onus of proof rested with the property owner. It cost the association the sum of £350 to recover £150 damages. There was then the case of Dewar v. Burn and South Derwent Colliery Company on the same estate, about 100 yards from the house concerned in the previous case, and as the case had to go to the High Court, and could not be heard in the county court, as it ought to have been, the association had to pay costs of some £1,200 in an attempt to recover a sum of £200. That is the situation in my area.
If there is to be no remedy for those who suffer in this way, the Minister ought clearly to say so. He ought to let the Committee know that the Government have determined that they will close the gates against municipalities and private owners getting compensation in future. I would like to quote another case from the Consett area. Because of the extreme difficulty of purchasing what they deemed to be land subject to subsidences, the local authority were driven to call in the Ministry of Health, which duly sent an inspector down. After examining the whole area in and about that district, the local authority were driven to accept land, on which they proposed to erect municipal houses, in the deeds concerning which there was a clause that no compensation would be paid in the event of a subsidence occurring to the property built upon that land. Surely, that is a state of affairs which ought not to be permitted to continue. The Minister ought to say, before a Division is taken, whether it is not practicable that the liability for subsidences should be placed upon the Commission and that the Commission should, in due course, embody in the leases to the new holders responsibility for subsidences of this character. There cannot be any difficulty, for that is something which is done again and again in all sorts of business documents. If it were done in this case, the community would be protected. It is useless to say that it would represent an enormous liability upon the coal-working community. We ask the Government now to take this opportunity, which may not occur again in the life of this Parliament

—we hope it may occur in the life of the next Parliament, when another Government from this side may be in office—of doing a very elementary act of justice towards those who admittedly are suffering, and place the liability for damage by subsidence upon the proper shoulders.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I have listened to much of the Debate on this Amendment, and I have listened very carefully to the appeals made on behalf of the owners of small property. I would like to add a word for the mining villages in South-West Durham which I represent. If one went there and took a photograph from the air, it would show not only heaps of refuse caused by the dumping of stones and cinders from the mines, but hills and holes caused by subsidences through the working of mines underneath dwelling houses. The ceilings of many houses are cracked and falling, and the walls have to be propped up. It is similar to Pompeii and Herculaneum, except that in the case of Pompeii and Herculaneum, the erruption of Vesuvius was what was known as an act of God, whereas mining subsidence is an act of man. In the case of an act of God, there can be no compensation, at any rate in this world, but in the case of a mining subsidence, there ought to be a chance of getting compensation. If the acts of man are derogatory to the property of some person, it ought to be compulsory for compensation to be paid for the damage done. There have been some remarks about the terminology of the Amendment, and it has been said that there is a weakness in the wording of it. Is there any strength in the Government's treatment of the small property owner? If the words are weak, the Government ought to be strong enough so to alter those words as to make them of greater avail to the man who has spent money in providing himself with a shelter. This Government always feeds the fat calf; here it is giving compensation to the royalty owners and at the same time neglecting to give fair treatment to the small property owner.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Bromfield: Like the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), I make no apology for continuing the Debate on this Amendment. I wish to deal with the matter from two points of view; first, in


relation to property owners generally, and secondly—and more important—in relation to the owners of small property, who have been referred to in a number of speeches. During the last few days, I have received letters from property owners, large and small, letters from urban authorities—and let hon. Members mark this—a letter from the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce, a body of men who are employers of labour, all of whom know the terrible consequences of subsidences in the whole of North Staffordshire. I have had brought to my notice the case of a man who spent £470 in erecting a small house some eight or nine years ago. Within two years of the house being erected, it began to crack and case in, so that it had to be held up in a variety of ways. What happened was that the house got into such a terrible condition that it was totally impossible to live in it, and then the colliery company offered £50 to the man who had built it at a cost of £470. As a result of legal proceedings, the man was able to get £75. He was a poor man. Another case that came to my notice was that of a row of houses all of them badly affected by subsidence, cracks appearing in most of them, which were stopped up with cotton waste to

prevent the people living next door from listening to what was taking place in the house adjoining. The walls were re-papered, and as the cracks became wider, were again repapered to make the rooms look decent. One house had been converted into a shop and the crack in the wall of the house adjoining the shop was wide enough to permit the tenant ordering what he required through the hole in the wall, thus avoiding the necessity of going into the shop in the ordinary way to order the goods he required. The law in this matter is nothing but a scandal, and something ought to be done to remedy the situation. It is the same throughout North Staffordshire. I know that the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade have been to North Staffordshire to make speeches, but if they would visit that area with me and other hon. Members from North Staffordshire, we should be able to show them some of the consequences of subsidences and then they might change their tune and begin to act a little more fairly and justly towards the great mass of poor people.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 230.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[7.27 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacLaren, A.


Ammon, C G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maclean, N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. le M.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Abordare)
Mathers, G.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Messer, F.


Bevan, A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Milner, Major J.


Broad, F. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Montague, F.


Bromfield, W.
Hayday, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Muff, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hicks, E G.
Oliver, G. H.


Cape, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.


Chater, D.
Hollins, A.
Parker, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.


Dalton, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Day, H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Short, A.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Gallacher, W.
Lunn, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)




Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Sorensen, R. W.
Walker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Stephen, C.
Watkins, F. C.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Westwood, J.



Thorne, W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thurtle, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Gledhill, G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Patrick, C. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peake, O.


Assheton, R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Piekthorn, K. W. M


Balniel, Lord
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harbord, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bracken, B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Riokards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bull, B. B.
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hopkinson, A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Channon, H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hunter, T.
Scott, Lord William


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Selley, H. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simmonds, O. E.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kimball, L.
Somervell, Sir O. B. (Crewe)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crooke, J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spens, W. P.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lyons, A. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strickland Captain W. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Doland, G. F.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Maclay Hon. J. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Magnay, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maitland, A.
Touche, G. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dunglass, Lord
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Markham, S. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Marsden, Commander A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ellision, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Emery, J. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wells, S. R.


Fleming, E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nall, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord







Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.



Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wragg, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wise, A. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.


Withers, Sir J. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: In ordinary circumstances I should not have offered any observations on this Clause, but the circumstances are exceptional, and I desire to draw the Committee's attention to what has happened. We are not now considering the Clause as it was originally drafted but a Clause in quite a different form. The Clause as originally drafted has been completely emasculated and is unrecognisable to those of us who studied meticulously the original wording. We have done our best to assist the Government to secure a smooth and expeditious passage for this Bill, but unfortunately the Government require to be saved from themselves and from their own friends, and in my judgment—and I use plain and understandable language—they have sold the pass. Certainly they have sold the pass as regards this Clause. I ask the Committee to note that as a result of the Amendment accepted by the Government earlier in the evening, very few words are now left in the Clause which were there when we entered upon its discussion. We on these benches have come to the conclusion—and I think it is a fair interpretation of what has occurred—that the Government are in the mood to succumb to the representations of property interests, and particularly of highly-placed property interests. Those

interests are well protected by the financial Clauses of the Bill, but they are not prepared to give way a single inch to the smaller property-owners who are affected.

In thus explaining our attitude towards the Government's position on this matter I speak with the utmost kindliness of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines. Originally we thought that the Government's intentions in this Bill were sound and beyond reproach, but, apparently, the Government are much too impressionable and show too much readiness to yield. I would take no exception to that, if they showed the same readiness to accept proposals from all parts of the Committee but their acquiescence is confined to representations from hon. Members on the benches opposite. Therefore, much as we desire to expedite the passage of the Bill, much as we would like to see it placed on the Statute Book at an early date, we must take account of the changed circumstances and the exceptional circumstances, and the fact that there has been a betrayal of the interests of the Commission itself by the Government. That is demonstrated by their acceptance of an Amendment which has completely changed the Clause, and we are bound to divide against the Clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 122.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
De la Bère, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Denville, Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Doland, G. F.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Drewe, C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Channon, H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Assheton, R.
Christie, J. A.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Dunglass, Lord


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Eastwood, J. F.


Balniel, Lord
Colfox, Major W. P.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Ellis, Sir G.


Beechman, N. A.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emery, J. F.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Craven-Ellis, W.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Bracken, B.
Crooke, J. S.
Everard, W. L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fleming, E. L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Brown, Rt.-Hon. E. (Leith)
Cross, R. H.
Furness, S. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Bull, B. B.
Culverwell, C. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Butler, R. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)




Gledhill, G.
Maitland, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Selley, H. R.


Graham, Captain A. G. (Wirral)
Mander, G. le M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Markham, S. F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Marsden, Commander A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Moreing, A. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Spens. W. P.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Munro, P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Harbord, A.
Nail, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hepworth, J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Patrick, C. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Higgs, W. F.
Peaka, O.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Holdsworth, H.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Holmes, J. S.
Petherick, M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Touche, G. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Train, Sir J.


Hunter, T.
Proctor, Major H. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


James, Wing-commander A. W. H.
Radford, E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Kimball, L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Warrender, Sir V.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, S. R.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Levy, T.
Rowlands, G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lewis, O.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Liddall, W. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wise, A. R.


Lyons, A. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Withers, Sir J. J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wragg, H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Salt, E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


McKie, J. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Young, A. S L. (Partick)


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.



Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Savery, Sir Servington
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Magnay, T.
Scott, Lord William
Captain Hope and Captain




Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leach, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leonard, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Gallacher, W.
Leslie, J. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gardner, B. W.
Logan, D. G.


Banfield. J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lunn, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Barr, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Batey, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.


Bevan, A.
Hall, G. H. (Abordare)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, G.


Bromfield, W.
Hardie, Agnes
Maxton, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Messer, F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hayday, A.
Milner, Major J.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cape, T.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.


Chater, D.
Hicks, E. G.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hollins, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Cove, W. G.
dagger, J.
Paling, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.


Dalton, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lathan, G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)







Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Sexton, T. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shin well, E.
Thorne, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Short, A.
Thurtle, E
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Silverman, S. S.
Tinker, J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walkden, A. G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Walker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watkins, F. C.



Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stephen, C.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Charleton.


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Westwood, J.

CLAUSE 9.—(Notice to the Commission, and effect, of dispositions made during interim period.)

7.46 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, after "notice," to insert "in writing."
This Amendment is to make it quite clear that the notice shall be given in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 36, leave out "given" and insert "delivered."—[Captain Crookshank.]

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, at the end, to add:
(5) The amount of all costs, charges, and expenses reasonably incurred by any person other than the Commission of, or in connection with, the delivery of any draft or the giving of any notice under Sub-section (1) or (2) of this Section or of or in connection with any such proceedings as are referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section shall be paid to such person by the Commission.
This Amendment is intended to protect the parties to a new lease in respect of costs. This is the first of a series of Clauses giving the Commission control over the development of coal as from the valuation date. As regards the granting of new leases or the renewal of leases, a new and a proper liability is put on the would-be lessor. When he wants to grant a valid lease he has to supply a draft to the Commission. Under Sub-section (3) a curious method of procedure is provided for, namely, that unless the Commission commence proceedings against the lessor for a declaration that the proposed lease is not in conformity with the notional contract contained in the earlier Clauses, the lease will be a good one. I cannot imagine that that sledge-hammer method will be the method employed in actual practice. What will happen will be that the lessor will proceed to submit to the Commission a draft of the proposed new lease or the renewal of the lease. The Commission's solicitors will then make

comment, the draft will go backwards and forwards several times, and if, as I assume, they are sensible people, at the end of some weeks there will be an agreed draft, which will be the actual form of the new or renewed lease. I cannot imagine that the Clause will be carried out literally as laid down in the Bill, namely, that the draft will be submitted and then nothing will happen until proceedings are taken against the proposed lessor if the Commission does not approve of it. Be that as it may, this is a new obligation rightly imposed on the lessor, and an obligation which will involve certain legal costs.
When the Committee note the provisions made in regard to corresponding interferences with the rights of various parties interested in the coal, for the benefit of the Commission and the community, they will find that in Clauses 11, 13, and so forth, there is provision in regard to costs, providing that inasmuch as this legislation is imposing new and hitherto unknown legal liabilities on the coalowners they ought to have some protection granted to them as regards costs. I cannot see why in this particular case there is no provision as to how the costs are to be borne by either the Commission or the coalowners. I am raising a question of principle, and my new Subsection is submitted in a way most favourable to those on whom the new legal liability is being imposed. I move it for the purpose of pointing out that this liability will involve legal transactions extending over weeks or months, and whether or not my hon. and gallant Friend is prepared to accept my proposal, at any rate there ought to be some provision to deal with the costs of these transactions, as there is in regard to other transactions. It may very well be that the governing provision as to costs in the Fourth Schedule, which is repeated in the Fifth Schedule, will be the general rule. It is provided that where a mortgagee is concerned the costs shall be borne by the Commission, and in other


cases the question is to be determined by agreement or, failing agreement, by arbitration. I suggest that my proposed Sub-section is the way to deal with this matter. The moment that the valuation date passes there will be a large number of transactions between coalowners and the Commission, and a great deal of transactions over the terms of new leases and the renewal of leases, and the costs of these transactions ought to be provided for in some way in the Bill.

7.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be, first, that the Commission would have to pay the costs incurred by the owner for sending them the copy of a proposed lease. In the circumstances which are existing that is an obligation which is not a very serious one, because no prudent vendor would wish to vary a new lease or to vary an existing one without consultation with the purchaser. The second effect of the Amendment would be that the Commission would have to pay the costs of informing them, under Subsection (2), of any disposition about which the owner might wish to let them know. I should not have thought that that would be a very expensive process. It is not mandatory. This gives the owner an opportunity of satisfying himself and safeguarding himself that he is not going to do something in the way of variation or disposition which may be considered damaging to him, and very undesirable. The whole object of the provision is to enable the owner to make quite sure of his position if he wants to, and it is at least in his own protection as of that of the other party. I cannot think that the expenses in either of these cases would be very great, nor do I think it reasonable that they should fall on the Commission.
The hon. and learned Member did not amplify the third effect, namely, that the costs incurred as a result of proceedings should also be paid. That is a suggestion which we cannot possibly consider. Look what would happen. Proceedings would take place only if the Commission believed that the owner was unwarrantably depreciating the property, and he went on doing it. Then the Commission could take the matter to the court. The court might agree with the Commission

that what the owner was doing was wrong, or they might not. If the court agreed with the Commission that the owner was doing something contrary to what was laid down in the general rules which we have already passed, it seems to me a most odd suggestion, and certainly not a reasonable one, that in a case where the owner was found by the court to be doing something unwarrantable, the Commission should pay his expenses. If it were the other way round, and the court found that the Commission had taken a point which was not a good one, then, on the merits of the case, the question of costs would be left to the court, and they would, no doubt, find against the Commission. The hon. and learned Member's suggestion goes very much too far, and I cannot accept it or recommend its acceptance.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(Powers of Commission for consolidation of leases before the vesting date.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 36, after the first "of," insert, "the premises comprised therein, being."—[Captain Crookshank.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Wragg: I beg to move, in page 13, line 10, after "colliery," to insert "undertaking."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). It is a very simple Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it. It is purely drafting. The effect would be to enable a colliery undertaking that owns several collieries, possibly within an area of a few miles, to bring those collieries together under one lease, provided they belong to a single colliery undertaking. This is a very small Amendment, and I hope it may be accepted.

8.1 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This is a purely drafting question, and there is nothing between my hon. Friend and myself. What we are trying to define in this Subsection is what is colloquially known as a colliery "take," and I am not at all sure that the word "undertaking" inserted


where he wants it put would have the desired effect. What I am sure we both want, and what, I think, the Committee want inserted is "a colliery take" and between now and a later stage we shall probably find some words which will be in agreement with everybody. I suggest not putting this in now as I am not satisfied that it really refers to what either of us wants, as we are both agreed that "colliery take" is what is required.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I think I can see the purpose of the proposed Amendment. It is, that where you have a group of collieries working the same undertaking within a given area, if you are going to extend that area, as there is a possibility of doing under later Clauses of the Bill, the undertaking will be extended to include more than one group of pits. We have this case in point, that where you have two shafts working on different seams, within a radius of about half a mile of this colliery undertaking, you may have two other shafts of another undertaking—another taking of coal. So the difficulty will arise, unless it is safeguarded against, that these two different groups may be regarded as one colliery undertaking under the reorganisation. That is the only point I wish to make, and if that can be safeguarded, so far as I am concerned, personally, there is no objection to the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think the Amendment does that, but I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. I think he will agree that what we want to get is the colliery "take."

Mr. Hall: Yes.

Mr. Wragg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Right of freeholder in Possession of coal to lease thereof.)

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 13, line 41, to leave out "person entitled to the lease may require," and to insert:
Commission may decide to be in accordance with the best interests of the industry as a whole.
I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman can see his way to accept this very

modest, and, I believe, very desirable Amendment. Perhaps I had better explain what its purpose is. The Clause under review is one which provides for the provision of a lease to a freeholder, or leases to freeholders, as the case may be. In effect it means that a person being a freeholder who is in the ownership of coal may be granted a lease by the Commission if he is not in possession of a lease before the vesting date. There does not appear to be any substantial reason why a freeholder who has been compensated for his rights in coal should be entitled to a lease at all, but there may be circumstances which justify a lease and, if so, it is our submission that the right to such a lease should be limited in time. We are particularly concerned with Subsection (2) which says:
A lease granted under this Section shall be granted for such a time, commencing on the vesting date "—
and I direct attention to the following words—
as the person entitled to the lease may require.
These words are much too wide in character, and I cannot understand at all, although there is possibly a satisfactory explanation, why the Government allow these words to be inserted. The words we propose are:
Commission may decide to be in accordance with the best interests of the industry as a whole.
As this is a Bill where very wide powers are vested in the Commission in the interest of efficiency in the industry, it does appear to me that these words are more appropriate than the words in the Clause. At any rate, I am unable to comprehend why a freeholder, if granted a lease, having been compensated for his royalties, should be entitled to the lease as long as he may require. That may mean 100 years. Surely circumstances might arise where the Commission might wish to step in and interfere and revise the terms of the lease in the interests of the industry, or, to use the words of the Bill, "in the national interest." My interpretation of this Sub-section is that the Commission would be debarred from exercising such powers. There may be provision in some other part of the Measure which overrides this, but that is how I see it. I hope the Secretary for Mines will accept the words which I am moving. Unless the words are acceptable to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I


should be entitled to suspect that they intend to leave too much power in the hands of private interests. I hope I am wrong in that interpretation, but that is how it strikes me. Subject to any explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to offer, I move my Amendment.

8.12 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that in Clause 5 we have already decided not to interfere in any way with the existing leases. The leaseholders' position is safeguarded. Anyone who has a lease is entitled to work it until the end of his lease. It is a retained interest under Clause 5. That being so, the effect of this Clause is to adopt the same principle in the case where the working proprietor has bought the freehold and, because he has bought it, is not subject to a lease at all. I cannot see why he should be put in a worse position than a man who is working the coal as a result of a lease. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have seen some merit in a working proprietor of a colliery undertaking looking to the future and saying, "For the better running of my undertaking I will buy the freehold of the coal, and I shall then have control over it." That is a commendable thing to do rather than a bad thing, and, if so, it seems to me very bad that he should be put in any worse position when the Bill came into operation; that although a man who has a lease is entitled to go on holding it, the other man who has sunk a lot of capital in his undertaking and has taken the initiative some time ago before there was any thought of a Bill, should not have the same rights.

Mr. G. Hall: How long is it to go on?

Captain Crookshank: I am merely dealing with a point as to why he should be in a position to be entitled to a lease. He purchased the freehold, and he ought to be entitled to work it. The Bill safeguards the position of a man with an existing lease, and the corresponding principle seems to us to apply to the working proprietor. We ought to say to him, "Yes, you ought to be entitled to a lease for such period as is reasonably necessary for enabling the coal to be worked out." That is the term of the period,
not being longer than may be reasonably requisite for enabling the coal comprised therein to be worked out.

The word "reasonably" would obviously mean, I should think, from the point of view of the Commission, not necessarily a lease for ever and ever, but sufficient time having regard to what is requisite to bring out the coal.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation. Can he say, in view of what he has just said, about the words:
not being longer than may be reasonably requisite,
why it is necessary to put in,
as the person entitled to the lease may require.

Captain Crookshank: These words are necessary. The person would say, "I want a lease to work my coal," and the Commission might say in reply, "You can have the lease long enough to enable you to work out the coal, provided you do not ask for a term which is completely unreasonable."

Mr. Shinwell: Does not this mean that the Commission has no power at all in the matter and that once the lease has been granted it will be for as long as the person entitled to the lease may require it? It may be any period of years. There is no fixed point. In spite of the conditional words,
not being longer than may be reasonably requisite for enabling the coal comprised therein to be worked out,
does it not mean, in effect, that the Commission, once having granted the lease, has no power to terminate it? The Commission ought to be protected in this matter. I rather detected in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman some little doubt as to the point he was making. If my assumption be correct, perhaps he would like to reconsider the matter.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. E. Evans: This is a small point which boils down to the question, on whom should be put the onus of establishing what term of years is the proper one? Under the Clause as it stands, if the applicant for the lease prepares a statement for the Commission, and says that he wants the lease for 99 years and that that is the term which he will require under the provisions of this Bill, he will not have to do any more. Then there is to be imposed on the Commission the


onus of disproving his statement that the 99 years' lease is a proper term. It seems to me that the onus should be put upon the applicant to satisfy the Commission that the term of years for which he is applying is the proper term. I do not think there is very much in it, but, on the whole, it is the sort of principle on which

we act in legal matters, and it would be better to shift the onus.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 122.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Peaks, O.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gledhill, G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Petherick, M.


Anderton, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Aske, Sir Ft. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Assheton, R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beechman, N. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Harbord, A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rowlands, G.


Brass, Sir W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepworth, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Holmes, J. S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hopkinson, A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Selley, H. R.


Gary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Simmonds, O. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Christie, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kimball, L.
Spens, W. P.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Levy, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lewis, O.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crooke, J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lyons, A. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cross, R. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Culverwell, C. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Magnay, T.
Touche, G. C.


Denville, Alfred
Maitland, A.
Turton, R. H.


Roland, G. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Drewe, C.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Marsden, Commander A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Dugdale, Captain T. L
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Welts, S. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ellistion, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wise, A. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Nall, Sir J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Everard, W. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wragg, H.


Fildes, Sir H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fleming, E. L.
Nicholson, Hon H. G.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Major Sir James Edmondson


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
and Major Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bromfield, W.
Hicks, E. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton. T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Holdsworth, H.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cripps. Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacLaren, A
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the person entitled to the lease shall have the right on making application in writing in that behalf on or before the vesting date to the Commission to surrender to the Commission the compensation as existing owner to which he was held entitled under this Part of this Act and to a grant from the Commission of a coalmining lease for a term and subject to the conditions mentioned in this Sub-section save that the rent payable thereunder shall be a peppercorn rent.
This is a modest but in no sense of the word a fundamental Amendment as to the position of the working proprietor of coal, the colliery concern which owns its own minerals which it is either working or going to work in the future. I think it is estimated that somewhere between one-sixth and one-eighth of the total area of minerals or royalties is comprised in minerals or royalties owned by working proprietors. In almost every case these minerals have been purchased for cash, and they have been purchased principally in the last 15 or 20 years, since the large landed estates began to be broken up;

and, as the Secretary for Mines said on a previous Amendment, they have been purchased through the enterprise, energy and foresight of colliery concerns. The proposal in the Bill is that these colliery concerns should draw compensation for those mineral areas out of the £66,000,000, and under the Clause we are discussing they are to have the right to a grant from the Commission of the coal-mining leases
for such a term … as the person entitled to the lease may require … and subject to such conditions with respect to rent and otherwise as are customary in the district.
There is also a provision that if the colliery concerns cannot agree with the Coal Commission as to the terms of the lease, there shall be a reference to arbitration. The proposal in the Amendment is exactly similar so far as the machinery is concerned, but there is to be no transfer of money in either direction; that is to say, the mineral owner shall be entitled to surrender to the Commission the compensation to which he was held entitled under this Part of the Bill, and to a grant from the Commission of a coalmining


lease, for a term and subject to the conditions mentioned in the Subsection, at a peppercorn rent. The machinery is precisely the same, the terms of the lease will be precisely the same, the ownership will be transferred to the Commission in exactly the same way, but under my proposal no money will pass from the Commission to the mineral owner by way of compensation, and no money will pass from the colliery tenant to the Commission by way of royalties. The financial transactions cancel each other out.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member tell us why he is asking for the acceptance of this Amendment?

Mr. Peake: If my hon. Friend will show a little more patience he will find that I am coming to the reason. I do not put this Amendment forward on the grounds of injustice under the Bill to colliery concerns which own their own royalties. I think that on two assumptions under the Bill there is no injustice to the mineral owners. The first assumption is that the £66,000,000 is a fair figure for the royalties as a whole. If that figure is too small then we—and by "we" I mean colliery concerns which own their royalties—will suffer in exactly the same way as the other mineral owners will suffer; but if, on the other hand, as hon. Members opposite contend, the £66,000,000 is too big a figure, then nobody will suffer through our declining to take our share of the compensation. We shall be refusing what is, according to hon. Members opposite, a too generous offer on the part of the Commission.
The second assumption which we have to make in suggesting that there will be no injustice in the proposals under the Bill is that we shall be able to convince the regional valuation boards that minerals owned by colliery concerns are ipso facto more valuable than minerals owned by other people. It seems to me obvious that if there is a colliery linked to a mineral area, the two taken together are more valuable in the hands of a single owner than they would be if they were valued separately. If you own both a horse and a cart you are in a better position than if one person owns the horse and the other the cart. We shall, therefore, have to convince the regional valuation boards of the fact that these minerals, through being owned by colliery concerns, are more

valuable than they would be in the hands of the ordinary mineral owner. If we can do that we shall suffer no injustice whatever under the proposals contained in the Bill; but I must confess that I am a little doubtful, in view of the constitution of these regional valuation boards, that we shall be able to convince them of the second proposition.
I am not putting this Amendment before the Committee on the grounds that the procedure in the Bill will inflict grievous injustice on the colliery concerns. I do not think it will do that. In fact, I think the only case where there will be any injustice under the proposal in the Bill will be at the hands of the Commission itself; and if I can explain that point to hon. Members who understand the difficulties about royalties and Mineral Rights Duty, I will do so. If these colliery-owned royalties are taken over by the Commission and immediately a loss has to be made, there will be a minimum rent reserved under the lease. There will be such a rent because it is one of the terms customary in the district. The colliery concern will not be any the worse off because it has to pay a minimum rent. It will have received a capital sum by way of compensation, and the interest on the capital will, obviously, be as much as, if not more than, the minimum rent which it will have to pay.
A minimum rent will became payable straight away, and the Commission, receiving a minimum rent, will become liable to hand over to the Exchequer the Mineral Rights Duty on the amount of the minimum rent. The working proprietor does not begin to pay Mineral Rights Duty until such time as he actually works the coal. Hon. Members will see that the Commission will, by the procedure proposed in the Bill, have to make three payments of Mineral Rights Duty, assessed on the minerals, and that these would not be payable if the minerals remained in the hands of the working proprietor. It seems to me that the only element of injustice in the proposal in the Bill is at the expense of the Commission.
The real reason why I am laying this Amendment before the Committee is that it will simplify and limit the scope of the financial operations of the Commission. It will be for the general convenience


of the Treasury, if, instead of having to borrow £66,000,000, it has to borrow only £55,000,000. Obviously, the interest and the sinking fund charges upon £55,000,000 are smaller than upon £66,000,000. The costs of administration by the Commission will be smaller if it does not have to measure the amount of coal worked in these colliery-owned freehold areas. A great deal of the expense connected with the collection of royalties is taken up in underground surveys. If there is a lease in these areas owned by colliery concerns, these areas will have to be measured for the purpose of finding out how much royalty is payable. Under my proposal, by which no compensation is drawn on the one hand, and no royalty is payable on the other; all the expense and trouble in measuring up the areas worked in those places will be saved and be recouped to the Commission. The amount of the sinking fund and interest is reduced by one-sixth or one-eighth, and the costs of administration are reduced by a similar amount.

Mr. Gallacher: This proposal will abolish the Bill.

Mr. Peake: Not at all. The amount of the surplus will be reduced by a similar proportion. On the other hand, the area over which reductions of royalty have to be spread under the Bill, because of the savings which may be effected and which have to go back to the colliery industry, will be reduced by an exactly similar proportion. This proposal will save the trouble and expense of valuation and collection of royalty afterwards, and it will save the Chancellor of the Exchequer from having to issue a loan for £66,000,000 when he need issue one for only £55,000,000. For all these reasons I commend this Amendment to the Committee.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I hold no brief for the coalowners, but I happen to have in my constituency a colliery company which is directly affected by this Amendment. I need not mention its name. This company has acquired 1,000 acres of freehold land, and is joint owner in an estate of 4,000 acres. These people are concerned about their position when the Bill becomes law. I quite understand what the Clause states. The position would be that this

freehold land, this mineral estate, would be taken over by the Commission. Then there would be the granting to the colliery company of a lease. I am not voicing my own opinion in these matters. The colliery company wants to know how it stands, and it has as much right to use its Parliamentary representative for the purpose of knowing where it stands as has the miners' organisation.
The colliery company say that they would be quite willing to hand back to the Commission the whole of the compensation, if they could be satisfied that they would be granted power to work that land in perpetuity at practically no cost but a nominal rent. While they do not argue their case on the ground of injustice, they say that if the freehold were taken away from them they would feel that the action was unfair to them. I am raising this matter in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to make clear exactly what the position of the company will be when the Bill becomes law, and what his attitude is towards the Amendment.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has presented to the Committee a very ingenious theory. While nothing can be said against it on the ground of its ingenuity, we can say a good deal about it on the ground of practicability. The first thing is that it appears to me to be an attempt to contract out of the Bill. I think I state the position correctly that one-eighth of the coal in the country is in the possession of mining undertakings. The amount concerned in this proposal would, therefore, be comparatively small, but, as against that, there are two considerations. One is that we are concerned here with a very important section of the industry, that may be operating when many other parts of the country are no longer operating.
There is a much more substantial reason. Under the Bill there is power, as I see the matter, for colliery undertakings to purchase the royalty rights between the present date and the valuation date. They are not denied that power; that was, indeed, referred to on previous stages of the Bill. If colliery undertakings, looking ahead and thinking in the terms expressed by the hon. Member for North Leeds, decided to


purchase coal royalties, there would not be only one-eighth of the coal in then-possession, but something like 50 per cent., or indeed more. What would then be the use of the Bill? The Commission would be left with a very small margin with which to deal financially.

Mr. Peake: I should be prepared to agree to a modification to limit the proposal to purchases made before, say, 1st November, 1935, to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: I would remind the hon. Member that the proposal which he now makes is on all fours with one that we made from these benches yesterday, when it was suggested that certain rights exercisable under this Bill should only apply as from the date of the announcement of the Government's intentions in 1935. The hon. Member has now fallen for that suggestion, if I may use a commonplace expression. It is all very well for hon. Members who are concerned with colliery interests to accept proposals of that kind when their own interests are affected, but when the general national interests are concerned they rule them out. Even with the limitation that the hon. Member now proposes, the proposal, in my view, is most unsatisfactory, and I am inclined to think it will be most unsatisfactory from the standpoint of the Government; at least, I hope it will. I cannot imagine the Government agreeing to a proposal of this kind to stand out of the Bill—that is the first objection—and not only that, but to leave the road open for the operation of the same process by a very large section of the industry. That is a most objectionable proposal, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Leeds, who is usually so amiable and benevolently minded, should make it. I hope that the Government will not countenance for a single moment a proposal of this kind.

8.48 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: I am glad that the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has brought forward this question, because, although I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), the point is rather an important one from a colliery point of view. I agree with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) that we should like to hear the Minister's views upon it. Although it may appear to be merely contracting out, and to be likely to do damage in that

way, it depends upon the view that is taken of what the idea of the Commission is going to be in the future. One hopes that the idea of the Commission is that eventually the royalty question will be liquidated altogether, but, if this Amendment be accepted, it will result in liquidating too early in one respect. People have been acquiring the freehold of their collieries in this way before the Bill came in. It has not been done in a sinister way, but merely with the intention, which many hon. Members feel should have been carried out before, of getting rid of the burden of the royalty owner. This proposal, however, would bring back those people into the position of having again to deal with royalty owners, who are to be slowly liquidated.
Although I admit that the hon. Member for North Leeds did not say there was any injustice, there are cases in which colliery owners have bought out their royalties at far higher rates than are being paid now. I myself have not done this except on a very small scale here and there, but in one case near to me the royalties were bought out for 34 years' purchase, whereas now only 15 years' purchase is being given. Those people will come back under the Commission, and will once more have to pay a royalty. I do not plead that there is injustice, because I do not think there is, but certainly they have not had the advantage to which they are entitled as a result of their policy, which is certainly for the betterment of the industry, of trying to wipe out the tie of the royalty owner. As many hon. Members know, a royalty owner can sometimes insist on your working certain parts of his royalty, perhaps to the detriment of the pit as a whole, because your lease is going to run out. You may have "shorts" in that district, and you may have to work out those "shorts" before the lease runs out. I hope it will not be thought that the people who have done this have done something that is sharp practice or wrong. They have really been trying to do what I think the Committee entirely agrees with, namely, to wipe out the difficulty of the royalty. I shall be very glad to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I think there cannot be the slightest doubt that this proposal would enable certain collieries to contract


out of the Bill. The risks involved in the Measure are already great enough. We must remember that these mining royalties are being purchased, not by the State, but by the industry. It is true that they will not belong to the industry after it has purchased them, but nevertheless it is the industry that will be purchasing them. Let us assume—I hope it will not happen—that in the course of the next five or ten years there is a contraction of 20 per cent. in the industry. What then will become of the finances of the Commission? Surely they will be in a very strained condition. If we are to allow certain collieries to contract out of the Measure, the risk of difficulties arising in connection with the Commission's finances are pretty obvious. There can be no doubt that the collieries which own their royalties are, in the main, the better off collieries. They are the collieries which have been financially strong and have been able to purchase their royalties.
Moreover, in the great majority of instances where the collieries own their royalties, the charges have been rather low. I think it will be agreed that the average charge in the Northern coalfield is substantially below what it is in some other parts. In the days when these charges were fixed, South Wales was a highly prosperous coal-mining area, and, consequently, royalty charges there are at present, despite the acute and prolonged depression, at the rate of 8.6d. per ton, as compared with 5.6d. for the whole country, and as compared, in the case of certain better off collieries, with a charge of round about 3d. per ton. If the Commission is ever to be of any use to the mining industry, it will some day or other use its surplus to equalise the royalty charges. Are we never to expect any advantage? There are disadvantages enough under the Bill, but unless at some time or other the surplus in the hands of the Commission is such as to enable it to equalise royalties, there will be a continued measure of unfairness as between colliery and colliery. If we allow a sufficient number of the better off collieries to contract out of the Bill, as they would do, there is no hope at all of eliminating the disparities between royalty charges which exist at the present time. I think that this Amendment certainly ought not to be accepted. If it is accepted, it will make what I believe

to be an already inadequate Measure for conferring betterment on the industry, still more inadequate. I think that as we have the Bill at present we must stand by the Clause as it is drawn, so that it includes the whole of the collieries.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Wragg: I rise to support the Amendment, because it seems to me so simple that it ought to be accepted.

Mr. Gallacher: It may seem very simple to the hon. Member, but we are not very simple.

Mr. Wragg: I never thought the hon. Member was very simple; I think he is very dangerous. I support the Amendment, because I think that those colliery proprietors who have brought their minerals, and have paid, in many cases, probably more than they will receive under the Bill, and those who are taking a risk in working their own minerals, are on rather a different basis from those who do not work the minerals. I hope the Minister will recognise the difference between them, and accept the Amendment, which can really cause no hardship to the men employed in the industry. In fact, the ascertainment probably will result in an advantage to the men employed in the industry.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: When I listen to Debates here I get more and more astounded at the character of the arguments put up by hon. Members on the other side. I do not think anyone was ever exposed as was the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I think it is especially important to direct the attention of the Committee and the country to the tenacity with which hon. Members on the other side fight for the interests of the big property owners and their utter disregard for the country as a whole, for the smaller people, or for industry as a whole. I said to the hon. Member, "Do you want to abolish the Bill?" He said that he did not want to abolish the Bill. But when the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well) showed how the Amendment could quite easily destroy the whole intention of the Bill, he admitted the force of the argument and made a jump to something which he had never been prepared to support before, namely, this proposal of, "Back to 1935." We are not saying there is an injustice but we remember what


Hamlet said about the lady who "doth protest too much." Hon. Members would not keep on reiterating that there is not going to be any injustice, unless they had the feeling that there was going to be injustice.
If the right hon. Gentleman who was so sagely wagging his head just now is going to be of any use in delivering pulpit orations, he will have to know more about the operations of the human mind. These hon. Members want the Amendment because it will give an advantage to mineral owners. They suggest that between now and the valuation date another coalowner might buy the mineral rights; but what is the matter with that? The hon. Member said, "Cut him out; I am entitled to this, but he is not"; but if it is a desirable thing, why is it desirable for the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and undesirable for another person who buys the mineral rights tomorrow? Can the hon. Member explain that?

Mr. Peake: I will. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted as it stood, a collusive agreement might be made between now and the valuation date. It was the hon. Member's argument, not mine.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member did not suggest anything about a collusive agreement. He suggested that between now and the valuation date a whole host of people might buy the mineral rights.

Mr. Peake: In collusion.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Seaham did not say "in collusion." Are you suggesting that the whole lot of mineral owners are blackguards? If you say so, I will agree. But if it is a desirable thing, the particular date when the mineral rights are bought does not affect the matter. If it is a good and desirable thing for a certain proportion of the mineowners to carry it through, if it is going to be good for the industry, for the Treasury, and for the Commission, let some more people buy the mineral rights. This will be still better for the Treasury, easier for the Commission and better for the industry, but the peculiar feature about this very desirable thing is, that it is good for the hon. Member and the two or three companies that have mineral rights now, but he is prepared

to take from every other mineowner the power to acquire royalties. I have listened to hon. Members here make appeals for getting rid of the royalties. Here is a Measure that is going to get rid of the royalties. For generations the miners, and the working classes generally supporting them, have been trying to get rid of royalties, but we have never got any support from hon. Members opposite. Certainly they are now going to help us. [Interruption.] I am not dangerous to the people of this country; it is the robber royalty owners and the robber mineowners.
I do not know at all whether the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is a good mineowner, but if he is, Heaven help the miners who work under bad mineowners. These are the men who are dangerous to the country, destroy whole areas of the country, and deprive the people of the right to the land, the right to work and the right to live. It is evident from the Amendment that we on this side cannot be too careful or too watchful of the tricks which the party opposite are prepared to play. The hon. Member wants to build a lifeboat for himself, and to knock the bottom out of the other life boat, so that the other mineowners shall not reach safety. The fact that he wishes to do that should dispel their readiness to support the Amendment.

9.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. S. Clarke: I rise to support the Amendment, and I do not intend to say very much, as most of the more important points have been dealt with already. What I intend to say too will be in very general terms. As regards "contracting out," I should have thought that the last two lines in the Amendment, where it says:
subject to the conditions mentioned in this Sub-section,
referring, of course, to page 14, line 4 of the Bill, where it states that leases shall be granted
subject to such conditions as may be reasonable
would have covered the point. I have sometimes heard in the past criticisms that mine owners are not progressive and that they lack foresight. I do not believe that, and I believe that we have here an example showing the contrary. Here you have one-sixth of the mineowners of the country who have had the foresight to


buy their royalties. They have forestalled the Government in this matter, having foreseen the benefit that they would enjoy by doing so. They have gone further than the Government propose to do, because they have wiped out for themselves the royalty rents altogether. They pay no royalty rents at all. When this Bill is passed, royalties will still be paid, but to different people. They will suffer as the Clause stands at present for their foresight, and that is discouraging to them and to those who control other industries who may think of doing the same thing and exercising foresight.
The object of the Government is, I believe, to try and do away with royalties. These companies have to a certain extent already done so. In a way the Government are proposing in their case to re-create them. They ceased to pay these rents, but here they are going to be asked to pay them again. Further, I do not think it is altogether right to say that they will not be losers at all financially. They may suffer actual loss in two ways. It is possible that the amount of the compensation that they are given will not be equal to what they have paid for these royalties perhaps in quite recent years. Again, I believe that when they come to spend the interest on the compensation which they get on fresh royalty rents, they may find that it will not meet them, and they will have to put in fresh money. I do not say that they have a grievance, but I feel that they may suffer a little as a result of this Clause.
The royalties which these collieries hold are somewhat different from those of the ordinary royalty owners. They have not bought them as an investment but as a company buys raw materials, so as to facilitate the work of its trade. I hope that that view will perhaps appeal to hon. Members opposite, who, of course, have different views with regard to royalties to what we have. For these reasons, I appeal to the Minister seriously to consider the Amendment.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: The Amendment before the Committee has been described as an effort to contract out on the part of a little group of royalty owners, and

hon. Members opposite have endeavoured to put it forward in the best possible light. One hon. Gentleman suggested that it really is going to benefit the miners. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke) said that they bought the royalties as raw material, he charged the Commission with abolishing royalties in order to re-introduce them, and he said that the companies bought royalties themselves in order to abolish them. Surely, that is rapidly becoming a fine example of the complications in the mining industry. What are the mineowners thinking of in regard to this matter? The mineowners and royalty owners and the Commission have been mentioned already; therefore, may I introduce the poor miner who would be very deeply affected if this Amendment were carried?
I do not suppose that any hon. Member opposite with coal-mining interests would care to suggest that, when they have bought the royalties, they should also withdraw the price of the royalties from the ascertainments. No one will suggest that they should withdraw the royalties from the industry. All that they do is to substitute themselves for the other royalty owners. The colliery companies in that case are not merely drawing profits as coalowners, but royalties as royalty owners also, and the ascertainments in their areas are not one penny less. If they proposed for the future to regard royalties as having been abolished altogether as a principle in their separate undertakings, and they regarded all the net surplus of the undertakings as available as dividends for the colliery shareholders alone, how would it affect the other collieries in this country? South Wales pays already an average of about 8d. per ton for royalties. They would then have to compete with collieries that have no royalties to pay at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have no capital sum given to them."] I know that, and we are not discussing it now. I am pointing out how this will react on wage conditions.
The object of the Bill is to relieve the industry in some way, but the net result of the Amendment would be to intensify competition within it, because collieries paying royalties to the Commission would have to compete with collieries which would pay no royalties at all. The whole thing is really ridiculous. It is an


attempt by a few colliery owners who, for their own purpose, have bought their royalties to be relieved of paying royalties for ever. It is an attempt to consolidate the selfish interest of these few colliery owners, and I think it would reflect very little credit on the Government if they showed the slightest sympathy with a proposition of this kind. For my part, I think we need not wait longer than the terms already suggested for the valuation period for the House to be convinced that this Bill is utterly impracticable. We shall yet see how hopeless a proposition of this kind is. We need not wait five years for the Commission to declare themselves bankrupt under the financial proposals of the Measure, and to have to create stock which will be irredeemable. I oppose the Amendment on principle and not on account of the effect which it is likely to have on the industry.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Wise: It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), but when he said that he regards the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) or indeed any of those who have spoken against the Amendment as in any way dangerous, I profoundly disagree with him. If they present their case badly to the electors, they are not likely to be returned, and if the electors are prepared to swallow the sort of nonsense which we have heard, then they deserve everything that is coming to them. There are two or three main misconceptions in regard to this proposal. One is that it contains some idea of contracting out of the Bill. The idea of the Bill is to transfer the ownership of royalties from private individuals to the Coal Commission, and the Amendment does not propose to interfere with that in any way. The only difference is in the form of a book entry.
The other objection that has been put forward by hon. Members opposite is that in some mysterious way the coalowner is going to get a tremendous profit out of it. I do not know how they can square that with their previous utterances on the Bill. They have announced long, loudly, and with almost wearisome reiteration that the sum proposed as compensation for royalties is far too large—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—and they are still of that opinion. In that case it is a little ungracious for hon. Members opposite to

denounce the wicked coalowner for refusing to take it and to waive this gross over-payment which hon. Members opposite denounce so much. We must have a certain consistency even among progressive minds.

Mr. George Griffiths: If no royalties are paid, will the coal owners then put the amount of their royalties into the ascertainment for wages?

Mr. Wise: I would remind hon. Members that I do not speak as an expert in the coal industry but merely as a private Member who has some idea of logic, which seems to be lacking in hon. Members opposite. The other point raised was that the Coal Commission would find great difficulty in meeting the interest payments to the owners of coal other than the coal covered by the Amendment, because they will not be able to draw royalties from the companies which are working their own coal. Surely it is fair to balance against that the fact that they would not have to pay interest to companies which are working their own coal, and if it is a fair sum, then the Coal Commission is going to be no worse off unless it is in the mind of hon. Members opposite that in the very unlikely event of their ever coming into power they are going to use the Coal Commission in order to exact unnecessary royalties from one set of coalowners to cover unnecessary differentiations on others.
There is nothing sinister in the Amendment. It is a perfectly simple adjustment, and one which I think is more satisfactory than the idea of removing a man's property and paying him for it, and then charging him rent. Under the Amendment the property will pass as the Government intend it to pass under the Bill, and all that will happen is that the two sets of payments will balance out against each other. On the question of the ascertainment, I prefer that some hon. Member who is connected with the mining industry should reply, because I frankly admit that I have no interest in coal, and I am not an expert on the way in which ascertainments are made.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I am not going into some of the matters which have arisen in the course of the discussion. For instance, I am not going to discuss the comparative


danger to the country of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the robber royalty owners. After all, the Amendment raises a comparatively narrow point, indeed, narrower than some hon. Members appear to realise, because when they talk of the Amendment enabling anyone to contract out of the Bill, that is not strictly true. The only thing it enables them to do is to contract out of the financial provisions of the Bill. I want to make the matter plain, because we should understand perfectly what the Amendment means. The Coal Commission will have exactly as much control over this coal as it has over other coal, and to that extent there will be no contracting out. No hon. Member as yet has met the Amendment and, perhaps, they will excuse what looks almost like impropriety on my part if I refer for a minute or two to the actual terms of the Amendment, because, quite apart from any question of principle, I must point out certain things in the Amendment which appear to me to be quite unacceptable.
The first point is that under this provision the working proprietor is to be given an option. He is to be able to choose whether he stands with the rest of the royalty owners under the Bill or whether he has the advantages, or disadvantages it may be, of the new proposal of my hon. Friend. That, clearly, is wrong. Either it is right that a working proprietor should not be subject to the same provisions as other royalty owners or, if it is right that one should be exempted, it is right that they should all be exempted. What is clearly wrong is that they shall have an option and be able to choose, if in some circumstances, as I believe, it is more beneficial to them to be under the operation of the Bill as it stands that they should have it, and in any other circumstances, where it may be to their advantage to have the new proposal, to have that. Whatever else may happen, they must all be treated equally.
The second point is that this asks for a peppercorn rent. That, clearly, is quite impossible. The hon. Member pointed out that the Commission has to assume now as a lessor the burden of the mineral duties and other taxation, and, therefore, it would mean not only that the Coal

Commission could not gain, but it would be an actual loser by the transaction. The other extremely great difficulty, to which the hon. Member did not address himself, and in which, from the pure point of view of machinery, I see the utmost difficulty, is the question of valuation. It is clear that under this proposal or any proposal of a similar character, even if no money is to pass and the two sides are to cancel out, the property must be valued, because it is part of the £66,000,000, and we have to know what is the total valuation of all the properties, and by how much is the 66,000,000 to be reduced. The whole machinery of valuation in the Bill depends on the fact that the people who are to have a claim for compensation for a particular property have every incentive to press that claim to the full, and to make the best claim they can for the highest amount of compensation. If this proposal were accepted, the working proprietor would have no such incentive. It would not matter to him how big was the amount of compensation allotted to him, because, in fact, he would not be going to take it. It is quite possible, therefore, that out of kindness of heart to the other royalty owners in the district who are to be remunerated out of the global sum, he might be quite content not to press his own claim which, anyhow, he is not going to be paid, and to allow it to go by default. The result of that would be to inflate the compensation that would be received by the other royalty owners. That, too, is an obvious difficulty, even if it is only one of machinery, which up to now has not been dealt with.
But, quite apart from the Amendment, which I think the hon. Gentleman will himself see in its present form is quite unacceptable, let me deal with the principle involved. Quite frankly I am not impressed by some of the arguments which have been used from the other side. They seem to be based more on prejudice than on careful consideration of the Amendment, and I think some of them have been unfair. I think at any other time they would have been quite prepared to agree that the working proprietor has stood in quite a different relationship to the industry from the ordinary mining royalty owner. After all, he has been venturing his capital in the business. He has been performing a function in the business, and ownership of the royalties has been part


of that function, whereas the criticism of hon. Members opposite is that the mining royalty owner has ventured no money and has been performing no function. Therefore, hon. Members would look on the working proprietor in a different light from the ordinary mining royalty owner. I certainly want to see that that man suffers no unfairness as the result of the Bill. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not say that any injustice was done. He did not make out a case of that character. The scheme of the Bill is drawn on the basis that all royalty owners should be treated alike. That is a scheme which could obviously only be abandoned, even in quite a small instance, if a very definite case of injustice or hardship could be made out.
There were, however, some parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech which I did not quite understand, and which I certainly should like to consider. First of all, he was frightened that in some way or other the working proprietor would not get a fair deal in the process of valuation, that not sufficient importance would be attached by the other mineral agents who were doing the valuation to the joint possession of the royalty and the mining undertaking. The other was whether the Coal Commission, in granting a lease to the working proprietor, would also take into consideration the particular circumstances under which he had come for a renewal of the lease. To suggest that we should see that in those two respects there is no injustice to the working proprietor is, of course, a very different matter from suggesting that we should take them out of the ordinary scope of the Bill. As I say, the Amendment is unacceptable, but I am prepared to consider whether there is anything that can be done to assist the case of the working proprietor before the valuation committee, or whether it would be right in any way to direct the Coal Commission, when they come to grant a lease to a working proprietor, to have any special regard to the circumstances in which he comes to ask for that new lease.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to obtaining information for purposes of Part I.)

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 34, after "On," to insert "and after."
With your permission, Captain Bourne, I would like to deal at the same time with this Amendment and the two following Amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) of this Clause, they will see that it reads:
On the vesting date the property in, and the right to possession of, the following documents relating to the management of coal or a mine of coal shall vest in the Commission, that is to say, all plans, sections, records of survey and other similar documents.
A great number of these plans do not, in fact, solely concern coal, but concern also the surface, and they are as necessary to the owner of the surface in order that the surface may be properly developed and looked after, and the danger of subsidence avoided, as they are to the Commission for the purposes of dealing with the coal. The purpose of these Amendments is that plans of that description should remain vested in the owners of the surface with the right to the Commission to make use of the documents. The only documents which should be transferred to the Commission are documents which are entirely unconnected with any of the property that remains in the possession of the last owners of the documents, but the Clause, as drafted, would in fact take out of the possession of the owners of the surface plans and documents which are clearly necessary to them. Therefore, in my view my hon. and gallant Friend should consider whether this Clause should not be re-drafted in order that there should be vested in the Commission plans and documents which solely concern coal and that there should be left to the surface owners the right to inspect them at all times, since what is going on in the mines under the surface clearly affects the surface, and that where plans and records concern also part of the premises retained by the coalowner, the documents should remain in his possession, and the Commission have the right to inspect them as and when they wish to do so.

9.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I think my hon. and learned Friend is right. Perhaps the Clause is too wide as it is now drafted,


because the effect of it is that on the vesting date the Commission will become the owner of all the plans which belong to the present owners. The last thing that the Commission want is to have documents which they do not require. The Amendment takes away from the Commission plans which deal with the surface, and so forth, giving to the Commission the right to use those documents at any time, but I think it would be desirable to limit the plans which rest with the owners of the surface to such plans as relate exclusively to them. I think that, perhaps, the hon. Member's Amendment goes a little too far one way, and perhaps in the Clause we go a little too far in another way, but on the Report stage we will insert words which will make it certain that the Commission get only what they want, and do not have their offices filled up with unnecessary documents.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand that it is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention to accept the Amendment and then to amend it on the Report stage, or does he propose that the Bill should be left as it is, and amended on the Report stage in accordance with the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion?

Captain Crookshank: I propose that the Clause should be left as it is, and not changed now.

Mr. Spens: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 1, leave out from "premises," to the end of line 3, and insert:
in which the lessee or that person has a retained interest."—[Captain Crookshank.]

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 15, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(b) Any plans, sections, records, particulars, or other documents for the time being in the possession of the Commission relating to the situation, condition, management, or working of any coal hereditaments shall at all reasonable times be open free of charge to the inspection of any person interested in land situate above, below, adjoining, or near to, or so as to be supported by such coal hereditament, or any person authorised in writing by a person so interested, and any person so interested or authorised shall be at liberty to take copies of any such documents.

Under the Clause as now drafted, the coalowner retains the documents and gives to the Commission an acknowledgment in writing of the right of the Commission to production of the documents retained by the surface owner. In the same way, documents which are transferred to the Commission will be documents which the surface owner will want to see. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, in considering the other point which I raised on my previous Amendment, will also consider this point, and include some provision by which the surface owner shall have the right to inspect plans and documents which he transfers to the Commission. It is difficult to conceive of any underground workings which are not of great importance and interest to the surface owner when he considers how he shall deal with the surface after he has given up possession of the coal.

9.43 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: On the broad principle my hon. and learned Friend is right, but I am afraid that he has opened his mouth too wide. The words of the Amendment are that there should be the right for the surface owner to inspect documents relating to the management, and that seems to cover a great deal more than my hon. and learned Friend wants to cover. We could not possibly accept this Amendment, nor could we agree that the surface owner should have the right to inspect the documents free of charge. The Commission will have to pay certain expenses involved by that sort of thing, and if they have to pay them, other people ought to do so.

Mr. Spens: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 15, line 32, after "therein," to insert:
and to inspect all or any plans, sections, or particulars of such premises or workings.
Under Sub-section (4) of Clause 13 certain persons authorised by the Central and Regional Valuation Boards, and also certain other persons, are authorised to enter any mine and to take plans and measurements of workings. A valuer, however, would be principally concerned to inspect existing plans, and that is the reason for the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: I agree with my hon. Friend. As these people have already been given, under the Clause so far, the right to inspect premises and to make plans, it is only sensible that they should have the right to inspect plans which already exist. I am pleased to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Sir David Reid: I beg to move, in page 16, line 3, after "default," to insert "without reasonable cause or excuse."

This Clause contains provisions as to handing over information to this authority, allowing access to plans and documents, inspection, and so forth. Any person who makes default in carrying out these provisions is subject to a very heavy penalty, namely, a fine not exceeding £50, and a further fine not exceeding £10 for every day on which he is in default. The Amendment proposes to make allowance for the case of a man who has reasonable cause or excuse for not complying with the provision. I take it that it is not the intention that such a person should be fined in this sum.

The Attorney-General: The class of offence contemplated in this Clause is one in respect of which it would not be unreasonable to insert these words. They occur in many other statutes. If there is reasonable cause or excuse for any default under this provision, it is reasonable that that should constitute a defence, and I think the Committee may accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Powers of the Commission in relation to underground land other than coal.)

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 16, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(b) to interfere with any underground structures or works;
(c) to withdraw or interfere with any water supply or source of water supply.
In moving this Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to refer to a later Amendment—in page 16, line 28, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section (2)—which is an extension of the same subject.

The Deputy-Chairman: I had intended to treat that Amendment as consequential.

Mr. Denman: Clause 14 entitles the Commission to perform necessary operations underground and the operative part of it is followed by a proviso which limits the exercise of this power of action either by the Commission themselves or licensees in certain respects. The Amendment seeks to add to that proviso two sets of circumstances in which the Commission may not interfere. It proposes that they are not to interferce with any underground structure or work, or withdraw or interfere with any water supply or source of water supply. It is clear that under the Clause as it stands exceedingly embarrassing conditions are liable to arise. Suppose, for example, somebody has bored for oil in a coal country. According to the Clause as it stands, the Commission could interfere with the structure in connection with that boring. We seek to preserve the rights of the present owners of the land in so far as those relate to underground structures or works, or to water supply or sources of water supply.

9.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a point which requires consideration. Under paragraph (a) of the proviso in the Clause as it is now drafted, the right conferred on the Commission to undertake underground borings or other operations is limited to this extent, that they are not to interfere with the carrying on of underground operations carried on for a purpose other than a coal-mining purpose. The hon. Member has pointed out that those words might not cover a case where, although operations were not actually being carried on, there were underground structures which had been put there in the course of previous operations and which might in the future be required for such operations and which, therefore, should be protected under the proviso. In the second Amendment to which he has referred, a slightly different point is raised. It seeks to deal with a case in which works or operations carried on by the Commission interfere with other works which it is desired to undertake or increase the expenses of those desiring to undertake them.
It will be clear to the Committee that the intention of the Clause is to give the Commission power to work underground without inflicting any real damage either on existing operations or on operations which may reasonably be conducted hereafter. We cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper because it goes much too far. The proposed new paragraph (c), for instance, would, I think, prohibit any operation which in any way would interfere with any underground water supply. But if my hon. Friend withdraws this Amendment, we are prepared to consider whether the intention which we have in mind is sufficiently carried out by the proviso in the Clause as drafted. We desire the Commission to have the power to do works underground as long as they are not inflicting damage on other people who have already worked underground or may reasonably require to do so hereafter, but we undertake to look into the point which has been raised.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Probably most Members of the Committee are aware of the fact that pits have to be sunk in shafts, and as the coal is worked out, the shaft is driven down deeper to the lower levels, but it is not necessarily perpendicular That depends on the geology of the district. I have in mind a case in which there would be practically two shafts working the lower seams. Is there anything in this proposal which would interfere with the Commissioners should they find that the surface measure had been worked out? Is there anything, for instance, which would prohibit them from using that shaft to get to the lower levels?

The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I grasp the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Williams: It might interfere with the surface or with water supplies.

The Attorney-General: This has nothing to do with the surface rights. I think the point as to surface rights arises on a later Amendment. As I say, the object of the Clause is to give the Commission power to do anything they like underground, as long as they do not damage existing structures or operations or interfere with anybody else. That is our intention, but, as I say, we are prepared to look into the wording.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Batey: We should have a little more explanation of this proposal. The Attorney-General seems to be very sympathetic towards this Amendment, and to-night we have noticed that Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite are receiving different treatment from the Amendments moved on this side. As the Attorney-General is so sympathetic towards this Amendment, he will not, I am sure, hesitate to tell the Committee exactly what is meant by it. Although I have some knowledge of coal mining, I do not understand it. The Amendment seeks to add words about interference with underground structures or works, and refers to withdrawal or interference with any water supply or source of water supply.

The Attorney-General: I am not proposing to accept the words on the Order Paper.

Mr. Batey: Then what is the hon. and learned Member proposing to do?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I said that the hon. Member had raised a point which called for consideration. He pointed out that the words in the Bill only refer to interference with operations actually being carried on, and that there might be cases where there were structures underground with which it would not be reasonable to interfere, although operations were not actually being carried on. I said that we would look into the matter.

Mr. Batey: There may be structures underground with which it would not be wise to interfere. What structures can there be underground with which it would not be wise to interfere? I and my miner Friends have no idea what structures there can be. The Commission is given power to deal with coal for coal-mining purposes. What else can there be underground? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oil."] Does the Attorney-General advance that argument?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Den-man) gave an illustration. I do not want to repeat it.

Mr. Batey: Let the hon. Member explain. I know coal-mining and have been down a few mines, and I should like to know any coal mine where the Commissioners would be interfering with any


structure or works by their power to work coal. Perhaps the hon. Member can tell us what structures or works he means. The Amendment refers to any water supply or source of water supply. We know of more than one colliery area where the village is supplied with drinking water from the pit. Does the hon. Member mean that after the royalty owners have sold out, as far as coal is concerned, they are to keep their hold on the water?

The Deputy-Chairman: That point does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Batey: With respect, I submit that it docs. The Amendment is, to insert:
(b) to interfere with any underground structures or works;
(c) to withdraw or interfere with any water supply or source of water supply.
Does that mean that the royalty owners will still have the right to claim the water that may be pumped out of the pit?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already pointed out that that point does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Denman: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: I beg to move, in page 16, line 27, to leave out:
(b) to interfere with the surface of any land.
We have heard the word "complexity" used frequently in connection with this Bill until one begins to wonder whether or not the Bill ought to be redrafted. My Amendment shows how ridiculous and contradictory is this Clause. Sub-section (1) says:
Provided that neither the Commission nor a person to whom a licence has been granted under this Sub-section shall be entitled by virtue of this Sub-section or of the licence—

(a) to interfere with the carrying on of underground operations carried on for a purpose other than a coal-mining purpose;
(b) to interfere with the surface of any land; "

How can they do the work provided in the first part of the Sub-section without interfering with the land? The Attorney-General has accepted a number of Amendments from the other side, and he must accept this Amendment, because the

phrase which I seek to delete is too ridiculous to place in an Act of Parliament.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I support the Amendment. The Commission may grant a lease to a company who are prepared to begin operations. The Commission will have previously bored for and proved the coal, and some company will be prepared to sink a shaft. I have in mind several cases where the land adjacent will probably have to be procured and a roadway made to the site where the shafts are to be sunk. The provision about not interfering with the surface of any land which would be a restriction to any company which had obtained a lease and was ready to begin shaft-sinking operations.

10.4 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am not surprised that hon. Members complain about the complexities of the Bill. The complexities are not due to any sinister motive, but to the fact that the subject is complex. We have done our best in the Bill to meet in intelligible terms the various situations which may arise in making the Measure workable. The Commission get a right in the coal under the Clause which we have passed. For the proper working of the coal, quite apart from what they have to do on the surface, they may have to go through adjacent underground land which is not in itself coal. That you cannot do unless you have power to do it, because in our system of law, ownership in land goes down to the centre of the earth. [An HON. MEMBER: "To hell itself!"] It used to be said that hell is the centre of the earth, but I understand people doubt that now. You can imagine that, 2,000 or 3,000 feet below the surface, the strata of coal will be surrounded by other strata not in themselves coal which will be the property of other people.
The purpose of this Clause, which I hope every hon. Gentleman in every part of the Committee will see is a thing to be carried out, is to enable the Commission to have power to license people to work underground in surrounding strata if it is necessary to get the coal. The ultimate purpose of this Clause is to confine those rights, broadly speaking, to cases where the underground working will involve no damage of any kind to any


body else. The only objection can be a purely legal one of proprietary right, a nuisance value in which someone might say, "You are not in fact doing me any financial or material damage, but you are seeking to go on what is technically my land." The Clause makes it clear that the Commission will not be held up by such an objection. That is why in the proviso in this Clause we restrict this power in the way that appears in the Bill.
Among other provisions in the proviso is the one which it is proposed should be omitted. We say under this power, "You shall not go underground in a way to interfere with the surface of any land." So far as the power of the colliery companies in the future to do damage to the surface is concerned, that is dealt with in the second part of the Second Schedule, which we shall get to at a later stage. I do not deal with that under this Clause, because that is a very important and quite separate matter, and the only purpose of this Clause is to give the Commissioners the same narrow power which I sought to define. Therefore it is essential that in defining that power we should make it clear that they are not entitled to damage the surface. I hope that with that explanation, and in view of the fact that the whole question of the power to damage the surface is one which we shall have the opportunity of discussing at a later stage, the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Lunn: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it is possible to enter upon land, to execute works upon land, and to have words like this:
shall not interfere with the surface of any land"?
I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that those words do not explain the position at all and that there is a necessity for some other words.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: There are certain parts of the country where coal mines work out to the surface or start at the surface and move away at a very low angle. Are we to understand that this distinction would prevent the Commission from interfering with surface land, even though the coal is found to come right out to the surface? If that is so—and coal near the surface is easy to obtain

and more economical to produce—the Commission would have no power to deal with it at all, unless in some other part of the Bill there are provisions which will enable the Commission to operate in that case. Secondly, are we to understand that, while the Commission have a right to grant a lease and do all the things referred to in Sub-section (1) of Clause 14, in no case will they have the power to interfere with surface land, even though it must be known that, having granted a lease to mine coal within any given area, mining operations can only take place—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the words in the first line of the Clause. This only deals with underground land not being coal.

10.13 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The answer to both questions is that this Clause is not a restriction of the powers of the Commission but an added right. Assume that under the latter part of the Bill the lessees from the Commission have complete power to go down underground. All that this Clause is doing is to say that having got underground they shall have power to work underground in land which has not actually coal vested in it, provided they do not inflict damage or bring about the conditions dealt with in the proviso. It is nothing to do with surface rights, which we shall discuss later.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The assumption is that they are already carrying on coal operations. They wish to go from land where there is no coal into a place where there would be coal. Surely that is the position, and the assumption is that they have got underground. If they have got underground, they have only done so because there is coal there, and therefore they want to go where there is coal from land where there is no coal; and this is intended to give them the power to do so.

Mr. Lunn: I cannot understand how they can get through to those works and carry them out without going through the land. My hon. Friends beside me say that I should withdraw the Amendment. It is not that I like it, but I take their advice and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I beg to move, in page 16, line 29, to leave out Subsection (2).
I am moving this Amendment in order to get an explanation why these particular limitations should be imposed upon the working of a licence or upon the Commission in the circumstances of Subsection (1). As I understand it, the limitations which it is proposed to impose are the limitations which would be imposed by the form of the conveyance upon the actual coal which they are assumed to be working in connection with any underground land which is not coal under Sub-section (1). I understand the reason why the restrictions are attached to the coal itself is because it is purchased subject to these conditions and restrictions, but I do not understand why similar restrictions should be applied to the other land which is not purchased.

10.16 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I can give an explanation of this Sub-section best by taking an illustration. Suppose, for example, there is some restriction imposed on the working of coal in a certain area owing to the fact that a house is above that coal, it may be the house in which the owner lives himself. The object of the restriction is that operations should not be conducted underground to take away coal which would lead to the house falling down. Under the first Sub-section of this Clause the Commission have been given power, as it were, to go about underground on other people's property, and it seemed to us reasonable that where there is a restriction applying, say, to a pillar of coal because its removal would cause some defect on the surface which it has been agreed should not be created, the general power conferred by Subsection (1) should not be exercised in the land over or adjacent to the pillar of coal which is protected by covenant.

10.17 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I appreciate that particular case, but may there not be many other servitudes or covenants on land through which the coal passes which do not call for the same necessity? I can understand in that particular case where there is a right of support for a particular building or a particular piece of land that you obviously do not want to take it away from the other land which you have

to work in getting the coal. There are other kinds of servitudes which are attached to the coal such as those in Clause 4 (4) but I do not see the necessity for such a wide provision as this Subsection (2). Surely, it should be limited to the class of case that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. For that purpose I do not think anybody would have any objection to it, but to bring in every other servitude and alternative covenants may unduly restrict the power to work through portions of land next to coal, and may effectively stop the utilisation of the licence under Sub-section (1). Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to look into that point before the next stage to see whether this limitation is not much broader than is really necessary, and whether it cannot be limited to such a case as the right hon. Gentleman has stated.

The Attorney-General: This point has been carefully considered, but we will reconsider it in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Commission to have exclusive rights to search and bore for coal.)

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, after "them," to insert "or."
After this Amendment I am proposing to move an Amendment, in page 17, line 7, to leave out "or otherwise." Under the Clause as it stands, the only persons entitled after the vesting date to search and bore for coal will be, first, the Coal Commission and, secondly, persons authorised by the Coal Commission. The result of accepting these two Amendments would be to extend that permission to existing leaseholders authorised by their leases to search and bore. I think it is necessary that a leaseholder who may, for instance, have several beds of coal one under the other should have the right to bore to beds below so as to prove them before he sinks a shaft. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will accept these Amendments.

Captain Crookshank: We leave the existing leases as retained interests, and the Commission have no right to interfere with them. It is quite possible that a clause in an existing lease does give a


limited right of this kind to bore, and, that being so, it seems only reasonable that we should make it clear by inserting these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 7, leave out "or otherwise."—[Mr. Keeling.]

10.22 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, at the end, to add:
(2) Where any facility, right, or privilege is required to enable the Commission to search or bore for coal in order that searching or boring may be effectively carried out the Commission shall have power to exercise such facility, right, or privilege subject to the payment of compensation to the person upon or through whose land the said operation, or either of them, is carried out.
(3) In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such rights shall include—

(a) a right to let down the surface;
(b) a right of air-way, shaft-way, or surface or underground wayleave, or other right for the purpose of access to or conveyance of minerals or the ventilation or drainage of the borings;
(c) a right to use and occupy the surface for the erection of railways, tramways, roads, buildings, or other works, or of dwellings for persons employed in connection with the borings;
(d) a right to obtain a supply of water or other substances in connection with the borings;
(e) a right to dispose of water or other liquid matter obtained from the borings.

(4) Compensation for the exercise of any such facility, right, or privilege shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
The object of this Amendment is to give the Commission the necessary powers in connection with searching and boring for coal. As far as I can ascertain from the Bill as it stands, although they have the right to search and bore for coal, they have not the necessary powers which will enable them to carry out that process. In the Petroleum Act, where a similar situation arose in connection with prospecting for oil, certain ancillary rights had to be given to those people who were entitled to bore for oil, and these proposed new Sub-sections are framed upon the lines of the powers given in that Act. The class of right which will be required by the Commission if they are to carry out what will be, I presume, a national duty, as well

as their desire, is, first, that they should be able to enter upon any land where they imagine coal to be in order that they may carry out operations there, and, secondly, they will have to have the right of making boreholes or short shafts or a number of other works for the purpose of proving the coal for which they are searching. They will also require water supply, the rights of drainage, and the rights of working tramways and railways on the surface in order to carry away the material which they bring up and to bring to the site the materials which they require for boring.
It seems to be essential that somewhere in the Bill these powers should be granted to the Commission, but we cannot find that they are in any part of the Bill. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it is no good giving the Commission powers to search and bore unless in fact they can carry out those operations in practice. All that we desire by adding these words is to afford practical means by which the Commission can give effect to their desires. The new Sub-section (4) says that the compensation for the exercise of any such ancillary rights or privileges shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. That seems to be the convenient way of doing it. It will mean taking an easement over the surface of the land or a right of entry on the land, and they are matters which can easily be dealt with by the proper tribunal under that Act. We hope the hon. and gallant Member will agree that these are reasonable powers which must be held by the Commission.

10.25 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Some provision must, of course, be made for rights, both underground and on the surface. Underground rights are already granted by the passage of Clause 14, and surface rights are to be found in Clause 18, Subsection (6), where the grant of these rights can be secured under the existing law, which is the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act. There, the Commission gets all the necessary rights it requires, and in a more appropriate manner than by the compulsory acquisition suggested by the hon. and learned Member. As the jurisdiction is already there for this purpose, we propose to


leave it there. There has never been any difficulty about it in the past, and there is no reason to suppose that there will be any difficulty in the future

10.26 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not assuming that the Coal Commission will carry on its work in a piecemeal and unorganised manner. It will surely try to settle, by some period of time, its investigation of what the mineral resources are. It may have to start very expensive boring operations; has it to get permission each time it wants to do so in order to prove a case of which I should have thought it was the judge? It seems most ridiculous to make it have to embark upon litigation, they being the people responsible for searching and boring for coal, on every occasion when it wants to make a test of any sort and to make a geological examination anywhere in the country. You are to have all the other parties appear, and cases fought out. It is going to be a most ridiculous procedure.
The old procedure was based upon the idea that you had one individual trying to get what might be regarded as an advantage over another individual, and the courts had to decide between them whether it was in the interests of the nation, or whatever the case was, that one individual should have an advantage as against the other. You are setting up a Coal Commission which is representing the nation and is to be responsible for the mineral resources of the nation. It has to test and ascertain whether they ought to be worked, and it must have the right, under the terms of the Bill, which is given to a licensee of the Board of Trade. The ordinary individual has not to go to the court in order to get facilities to start boring. He can get his right as a licensee without having to go to any court. Surely you are going to put the Coal Commission at least in the same position as a licensee who wants to bore for petroleum for his own gain and not for the national interest. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the necessity, when you have set up a responsible public body, for giving it power to carry out its duties, and are not putting it under the necessity of starting litigation, very often expensive litigation for all parties, on every occasion when it wants to test in some area or another to find out whether there is coal.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not tie this chain of impossibility around the neck of the Commission at the very outset of the work which he wants it to do. We do not want to have a Commission, whether people agree with its constitution or not, and which the hon. and gallant Gentleman told us on Second Reading is to be able to carry out a large measure of reorganisation in the coal industry, started on its way by putting around its neck the necessity for going to the court every time that it wants to do anything as regards carrying out the job which it has been given. It is a responsible commission, the right hon. Gentleman is here to answer for it in the House if it does anything wrong as regards searching and boring for coal, while as regards general policy he can be attacked in the House of Commons. He can give directions under Clause 2 as to how this duty shall be carried out by the Commission. There is perfectly good Parliamentary control, I am glad to say, over the actions of the Commission, and surely it is better that we should retain that control rather than put it in the hands of some court for the purpose of exercising these functions, which are national functions. It is not a question now between one individual and another; it is a question between a national commission and the public generally; and I suggest that, with the Parliamentary control that exists over the matter, it is desirable that there should be some much wider power than the very limited power given by Clause 18 (6).

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the Petroleum Act. Under that Act licensees get their rights either by agreement or by reference to arbitration, which is exactly the same process that is laid down here.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. E. Evans: Great responsibility and powers are being placed in the hands of this Commission, and they really ought to be enabled to carry out their duties. So far as I can see, no power would be conferred by the Amendment that the Coal Commission will not require in order to carry out their duties effectively. It is true that they can apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, but surely, when these powers are being given to the Coal Commission, they must be enabled to


carry them out. It seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell the Committee exactly what is involved in Clause 18 (6). If, as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, the Commission, every time they want to bore in any area in any part of the country, have to go to the Railway and Canal Commission to obtain permission to bore, that will not only be a very costly proceeding, but a very difficult one, and I do not think that that obligation ought to fall on a commission which is now in possession of all the coal and merely wants to ascertain where the coal is. I should like to give a simple illustration of what may happen, in order to see whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with it.
The Commission may want to enter upon a certain estate to bore for coal, but the landowner may not want that particular estate disturbed. Now that he is no longer interested in coal royalties, he may prefer that coal should not be mined under any part of his estate. But for the efficient working of the coal mines, knowing the geological formation generally, and anticipating that the working of coal from that point to some other point would be most economical, the Commission may think it advisable to bore in that area, and some landowner, apparently, can prevent them from boring for coal in that neighbourhood unless they proceed to the Railway and Canal Commission, at considerable cost, in order to obtain power to bore. I may be wrong in my assumption that that would be the procedure, but, if that be the procedure, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman insists on imposing that obligation on the Commission, I hope that every Member sitting on these and many sitting on other benches will oppose him. If I am wrong, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to tell us so, and then we shall know exactly why he wants to refrain from giving the Commission power to carry out a duty which the Act will impose upon them. The Commission will naturally want to ascertain as quickly and with as little cost as possible just where the coal is, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that they must make an application

to the Railway and Canal Commission every time they want to bore. If so, will he tell us exactly why he wants them to pass through that procedure, in view of the cost and the difficulties?

10.35 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: This seems to be the first example of the efforts of the hon. and learned Gentleman to rule us by dictation. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must not get cross. This place exists in order that we may learn to tolerate opinions we do not agree with, and if you want to get an early decision on this, perhaps the less I am interrupted the earlier you will get it. The proposal that, without any check or challenge, a body set up by Statute, which happens to own something, but not everything, under the surface, shall have an unqualified right to enter upon anybody's premises, whether that person is willing or unwilling, merely on the ground that subsequent compensation may be paid, is the greatest invasion of the rights of individuals, great and small, that has ever been made. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had any faith that the Commission, if they wanted to do this, would do it under reasonable circumstances, he would not desire that they should do it before they had had their claim to do it examined by some judicial body if the owner objected.
One of the things we have learned, for example, from slum clearance is the objection that people have to being turned out from their houses, even if they are poor. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes a right to destroy every conceivable kind of amenity. Only last Wednesday this House was discussing the destruction of amenities, and it unanimously resolved that it was a bad thing, and that there should be some protection for amenities. The hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to give this Commission the right, without challenge, to destroy everything. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) cannot find one word in this Amendment, which I presume he supports, to contradict the statement I have made. If he can find the words to support his murmer, perhaps he will tell me.

Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Member wants to make a lengthy speech, and wants me to provide him with the matter, he will not get it from me this evening.

Mr. H. G. Williams: If the hon. Member has no views to express, he had better not murmer.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: May I direct the hon. Member's attention to the first part of the Amendment? It says:
Where any facility, right, or privilege is required to enable the Commission to search or bore for coal in order that searching or boring may be effectively carried out the Commission shall have power to exercise such facility, right, or privilege subject to the payment of compensation to the person upon or through whose land the said operation, or either of them, is carried out.
This right is, by the Bill, explicitly vested in the Commission, and the Amendment provides that the Commission shall have power to exercise the right. Why deny them the right which is explicit in the Bill?

Mr. Williams: Really, I wish that the bon. Member, who once was the Secretary for Mines, would not only take the trouble to read the Bill, but also to understand it. I am saying that under this Clause the Commission would have the right to destroy any amenity they like, and there is no challenge to that right. It has the right to search or bore, but it can only search or bore subject to the fact that they obtain permission to break the surface. This gives them an unqualified right to break the surface, and to invade the surface in any way they wish without the slightest consideration of the interests affected, of the amenities, and to destroy anything subject only to the check—and I agree that it is an important check—of the obligation to pay compensation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me of any other check?

Mr. Shinwell: I will tell the hon. Member.

Mr. Williams: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will tell me now.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member sit down?

Mr. Williams: No. I wish the hon. Member would do it before I sit down. I gave way once, and he read out certain words which had no bearing upon the point I am raising. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should seek to confer upon the Commission a dictatorial right which has never been conferred up till now by any Government of any kind.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: If it comes to a question of dictatorial rights. I imagine that the dictatorial privilege of the Patronage Secretary will be exercised, because certainly the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is not making a helpful contribution to this particular Debate or to the passage of this Bill.

Mr. H. G. Williams: It is a rotten Bill, anyhow.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that the hon. Member recognises the value of frankness. He simply has been talking a lot of unadulterated nonsense, and, not to put too fine a point upon it, he talks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) seeking to assume the role of dictator. What has that to do with it? That is mere piffle, pabulum hyperbole, and a lot of other things I could mention. Let me direct the attention of the hon. Member to the governing section of the Bill which affects this Clause, and, therefore, affects this Amendment. The hon. Member has not participated in the discussion, and he does not know the first thing about the subject. We cannot excuse him for that, although we might excuse him for a good many other things of which he is guilty.

Mr. Williams: Answer the question.

Mr. Shinwell: May I direct the attention of the hon. Member to Clause 2, with which we are primarily concerned? In that Clause specific powers are vested in the Commission, and among these powers is the power to search and to bore for coal. That is the first point that is explicit in the Bill. The Commission are charged with that particular function. As to the question of dictatorship, let us see exactly where we stand. There is no question of the Commission exercising its powers to spare the amenities and all that sort of thing off its own bat without any consultation—nothing of the sort.

Mr. Williams: Consultation with whom?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will tell him with whom the consultation must take place. Let him apply his ingenious mind to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, when he will find that all these functions are subject to directions issued by the Board of Trade. There is,


in fact, explicit in this Bill full parliamentary control. I will read the words:
The Board of Trade may give to the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest.
The Coal Commission are not empowered to do as they please. They cannot go rushing here and there all over the country. They are to have regard to the general directions vested in the Board of Trade and subject to the national interest and safety in the working of coal. Moreover, and this is an important factor which has escaped the attention of the hon. Member, there can be no actual interference with the rights of leaseholders. They are protected, and all that my hon. and learned Friend is asking is that the rights that are vested in those who have contracted with the Commission to work the leases should also be vested in the Commission itself. It is a perfectly legitimate request, and why the Secretary for Mines opposes it I do not know. Let me put this point to him: It is perfectly true that in Clause 18 Section 1 of the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, is abandoned, but surely he will recognise that the Commission is bound to operate within the limits of that Act of Parliament, which means a frequent recourse to the Railway and Canal Commission. Why should a Commission which is to assist in the reorganisation of the industry have to make frequent application to the Railway and Canal Commission? You are limiting, handicapping, and fettering the Commission. If the Commission has to exercise its functions under the general directions issued by the Board of Trade—

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Member give me an answer about amenities?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not sure what the hon. Member means by amenities, unless he is thinking of the watercress beds in Croydon. I can give him an assurance on behalf of hon. Members on this side that there will be no interference with anything which exists in Croydon, and I am amazed at the hon. Member talking about amenities in this connection. Does he know anything about the coal areas of the country? Does he imagine that a coal undertaking concerns itself about amenities if it wishes to exploit

the coal resources in a particular area? Of course not. I think the Commission will be more highly seized of the importance of protecting amenities in the public interest than coal undertakings ever were.

10.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to prolong the Debate unduly, but the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked why in this case the Commission was being treated differently from those who desired licences for boring for oil. The answer is that they are not. The hon. and learned Member was wrong in his facts. Licensees for oil can only get access by agreement, and if not they have recourse to the Railway and Canal Commission. A large number of licences have been granted, and there has not been any recourse to the courts; they have all got the facilities by agreement. Hon. Members have asked why should the same procedure be followed in this case. It is largely because Parliament has always been chary of giving to a statutory body compulsory acquisition powers to exploit an area.

Sir S. Cripps: I find no power to acquire these rights by agreement in the Bill. The only power is with the Railway and Canal Commission. If the hon. and gallant Member was going to give powers to acquire by agreement that would be some help, but there is absolutely no such power in the Bill.

Captain Crookshank: I will certainly look into that. I thought it was implicit. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for calling my attention to it. The difference between compulsory acquisition on the lines that he suggests and what we propose is rather important because Parliament is always very chary of giving these powers, and it would be particularly in this case where there is already a process which has been in existence for some time past on somewhat analogous lines. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it would mean very expensive recourse to the court each time. I do not know that it is such a very expensive procedure, and I do not think probably there would be any difficulty on the ground that the Railway and Canal Commission would not be able to take a sufficiently wide look at the problem, but would have to decide each case individually.


As this process is here it seems quite unnecessary, as we think it is adequate, to set up another kind of process with another kind of procedure.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 219.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[10.52 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Abordare)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGovern, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacLaren, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Mander, G. le M.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Eastwood, J. F.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ellis, Sir G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Christie, J. A.
Emery, J. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Errington, E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Everard, W. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Calville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fildes, Sir H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fleming, E. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, J. D, (Hammersmith, S.)
Furness, S. N.


Barrio, Sir C. C.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Fyie, D. P. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cranborne, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crooke, J. S.
Gledhill, G.



Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Beeenman, N. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cross, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Wercester)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Crossley, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Boulton, W. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N W)


Brass, Sir W.
De Chair, S. S.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D
Hannah, I. C.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Denville, Alfred
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Doland, G. F.
Harbord, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bull, B. B.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duckworth, W. Ft. (Moss Side)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.




Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hepworth, J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Holdsworth, H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Somervell, Sir O. B. (Crewe)


Holmes, J. S.
Munro, P.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Spens, W. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nicholson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hulbert, N. J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Hunter, T.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Peak, O.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Keeling, E. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Law, Ft. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lees-Jones, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Porritt, R. W.
Thomas. J. P. L.


Levy, T.
Procter, Major H. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Llddall, W. S.
Radford, E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rankin, Sir R.
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, W. W.


Loftus, P. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lyons, A. M.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reid, VV. Allan (Derby)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McKie, J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, S. R.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Rowlands, G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Magnay, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Maitland, A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wise, A. R.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salt, E. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Markham, S. F.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wragg, H.


Marsden, Commander A.
Sandys, E. D.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Savery, Sir Servington
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Scott, Lord William



Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Hope and Major Herbert.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Coal not to be alienated from the Commission.)

11.0 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, to leave out from the second "coal" to the end of the Sub-section.

This Amendment proposes to leave out the last four or five lines of Sub-section (1). It does not seem necessary to us to confer upon the person who is to have the power to acquire land compulsorily, the right to acquire the coal also. If it is necessary for him to dig or move the coal, he can do so perfectly well under a lease from the Commission. If he had the right to get a lease to allow him to carry away the necessary coal, that would still preserve the coal in the ownership of the Commission and would not impair the completeness of their ownership of the coal in the country. Under this Subsection, the power to acquire land compulsorily is apparently only to be conferred where it is necessary to use the coal or the mine "in the course of such operations." I do not know what operations

the hon. and gallant Member has in mind when he considers it necessary to give some authority other than the Commission the power to acquire a mine. This provision seems to open up a very serious danger of the Commission starting, at an early stage, to get rid of the coal which they have purchased. That is highly undesirable. If anybody wants to use the coal, they can get facilities to do so from the Commission, without the necessity of the Commission parting with the freehold.

The essence of the Bill surely is that in future, for all time, the Commission should hold the freehold of all the coal and should not in any way divest themselves of it. Difficult questions may arise on this Sub-section. Suppose there are several superimposed seams and it is desired to shift some of them in the course of some work by a railway or other authority. Would this Sub-section give the right to the railway to acquire all the coal in that piece of land, or only the actual coal which they want to shift? If they are able to acquire the mine or the coal, it will involve the whole of the seams, however deep. That may be a very


serious matter for the Commission if, at some future time, someone wants to work through that area to a considerable depth. It would enable this authority to stop anybody from working there. Surely it would be sufficient in this case, if the body with power to acquire land compulsorily, were given power to lease those minerals which it was necessary for them to have. I suppose this would cover the question of coal for the purposes of supports, though it does not say so here. If it only covers the case of digging, mining, and carrying away coal, that is eminently a matter for lease and not a matter for selling a freehold by the Commission to some outside body, thereby breaking the totality of the ownership of the mineral by the Commissioners. We ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have this altered so as to make it a power to acquire a lease rather than a power to acquire the freehold.

Captain Crookshank: Our intention is not to deal with any very large matter in this Sub-section. The case that we seek to cover is, say, where power might be given to a local authority to dig a sewer which was situated in ground where the coal was very near the surface, and in the ordinary process of digging the sewer some coal might be brought up. In that case it would be a small matter. The other point raised by the hon. and learned Member about railways is not dealt with here.

Sir S. Cripps: It would be much easier to deal with this matter by licence to carry away that which was wanted, rather than by a sale, which would mean, presumably, the whole depth of the land right down to the lower seams. That certainly would not be wanted by a local authority. All that they would want would be a licence to remove the coal that was in their way. That could be dealt with by licence, without sale. Would it not be better for the local authority to obtain from the Commission a licence to remove the coal which they want to get out of their way?

Captain Crookshank: The provision made in the Sub-section as to coal necessary to be dug or carried away in the course of the operations would not take them right down to the middle of the earth.

Amendment negatived.

11.7 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 17, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (3).

This Amendment is on the same lines as the previous one, but it deals with a Subsection which seems to give even more power to alienate freehold in coal. I move to omit the Sub-section on the same basis as in the previous Amendment, but this does seem to be a stronger case, because it involves the alienation of the freehold in coal
that is necessary to be used in the course of such operations, or coal present among other minerals that is of so small value that the working thereof is unlikely to be undertaken except as an operation subsidiary to the working of those other minerals.

We take the line that this could also be met by lease, if it is necessary to meet it at all. Here, definitely, the Commission are given power to alienate not merely a particular portion of coal, but a mine of coal in a case where someone comes along and says that it is necessary to carry away the coal dug
in the course of operations other than coal mining, or a mine that is necesary to be used in the course of such operations.

These words are much wider than is necessary, and we are very nervous lest the Commission might start granting away coal rights, perhaps not knowing how much coal was underneath in the mine or not being aware of the underlying seams. They might alienate the freehold in a mine of coal in such a way as would afterwards be a grave embarrassment to them as regards working in years to come. We do not want any spots in the country where the coal is not owned by the Commission. This situation might be dealt with by lease, which would get over the difficulty of alienating the freehold. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member agrees with us that it is very undesirable to alienate any of the freehold, and that if the position can be met by lease that would much better meet the case, and save any danger of having spots in the coalfields where the Commission would be prevented in the future from granting coal mining leases.

11.10 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We come back here to our old friend "subsidiary hereditaments" and "associated minerals." The object of this Bill is to deal with mines where coal is the predominating


interest, and not with mines where coal is of such small value as to make the mine another kind of mine. The Coal Commission do not want to be responsible for controlling those other mines, and therefore, we think that that is a case where it is reasonable that they should be able to get rid of coal by selling it.

11.11 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely this is all property which the Commission have acquired. They have acquired it either as mines of coal or as subsidiary rights. Some of it they will have acquired as mines of coal. This gives power to alienate the mines of coal and not merely a subsidiary interest. What we are objecting to is their having any right at all to alienate the mines of coal whatever the circumstances are because they have purchased all the coal, and having the mines of coal in their possession we cannot see any conceivable

right for them to alienate that, except, of course, by granting leases. It may be that a lease will be granted to someone who is working another mineral, but it can be worked through the lease in that case. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman says is that he is concerned only with coal which occurs among other minerals. He cannot be right, otherwise the words "mines of coal" would not be used here.

Captain Crookshank: I think I am right. It is a very technical point. The definition of a mine of coal in the Bill is:
a space which is occupied by coal or which has been excavated underground for a coal-mining purpose.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 104.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[11.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Denville, Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Doland, G. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hunter, T.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hutchinson, G. C.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Eastwood, J. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis. Sir G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Levy, T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Emery, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Balniel, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lloyd, G. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Errington, E.
Loftus, P. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Everard, W. L.
Lyons, A. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Fildes, Sir H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Bossom, A. C.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Boulton, W. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McKie, J. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Furness, S. N.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macmillan, H- (Stockton-on-Tees)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Maonamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Brown, Col. O. C. (Hexham)
Gledhill, G.
Magnay, T.


Bull, B. B.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maitland, A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Cary, R. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Markham, S. F.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Marsden, Commander A.


Christie, J. A.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guest, Mai. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Harbord, A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Nall, Sir J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Nicholson, Hon. H. G.


Cranborne, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Crooke, J. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.
Hepworth, J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cross, R. H.
Higgs, W. F.
Peaks, O.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Holdsworth, H.
Petherick, M.


Culverwell, C. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.




Porritt, R. W.
Selley, H. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Procter, Major H. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Radford, E. A.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Rankin, Sir R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Spens. W. P.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wells, S. R.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rowlands, G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wragg, H.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Salt, E. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Samuel, M. R. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)



Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Thomas, J. P. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandys, E. D.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.


Savory, Sir Servington
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Munro.


Scott, Lord William
Turton, R. H.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hollins, A.
Silkin, L.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J, (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher. Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Paling, W.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Restriction on certain dispositions by lessees of coal.)

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: I beg to move, in page 18, line 21, after "Commission," to insert:
(which may be withheld without reason given and at the sole discretion of the Commission).

11.22 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Earlier in the evening the suggestion was made that the

attitude which my hon. and gallant Friend and I adopted towards Amendments was influenced by whether they came from those behind us or those in front of us. I need not say that that suggestion had no sort of foundation in fact, but we are grateful to those who have put down this Amendment because we think they have called attention to a point which ought to be embodied in the Bill. It clearly was the intention of the Clause that this matter should be within the discretion of the Commission, and although the Mover of the Amendment did not enlighten us on


the point there might have been some doubt on whether some provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act were wholly inappropriate. We are grateful to those who have drawn attention to this case, and we think these words make the meaning clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Amendments of working facilities enactments.)

11.25 p.m.

Sir D. Reid: I beg to move, in page 19, line 36, after "regard," to insert:
to the full annual value of such right as well as.

This Amendment depends for its consideration upon Sub-section (3). Everyone knows that the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act enables rights to be conferred for the purpose of working mines. Sub-section (3) is an Amendment of that Act, and provides that where the surface of any coal mine has been used for the erection of any surface works or dwelling place of workmen employed in connection with the working of the coal, they are the concern of the Railway and Canal Commisson, and there is to be
a right to use and occupy the works or dwellings for the purposes for which they were erected.
Then Sub-section (4) provides that where such a right is to be granted on the termination of a lease and the right was comprised in that lease,
the Railway and Canal Commission, in determining whether any compensation or consideration is to be paid or given in respect of the right to be granted by them and the amount thereof, if any, shall have regard to the fact that the right comprised in the lease was therein comprised and to the amount of any rent reserved by the lease in respect thereof,
By the passing of the Bill the whole situation will be changed. In the normal case, if these works and dwelling houses are erected on the surface and are comprised in the lease for mining work, they are part of the mining lease. The owner, being the owner of the surface works, undertakes to make himself responsible. It does not matter so much to him whether he gets the full business rent for the land used for the surface works or for the dwelling house. In many cases

I have known, as part of the bargain, a very great reduction to be made in the rental charged for land for certain purposes. Now the situation will be wholly changed. After the Bill has passed, the owner of the ground has no interest in the mine whatsoever. If a new lease is granted on the mine, the owner of the surface works gets no benefit from the royalty charged for the lease. His sole interest, therefore, is as owner of the land, and it will be immaterial that this matter was comprised in the previous lease. I am proposing that the Coal Commission shall have regard to the full annual value of such land. The Subsection will then read:
Where such a right as is specified in the last preceding Subsection is to be granted on the termination of a lease, and a right to erect or use the works or dwellings was comprised in that lease, the Railway and Canal Commission, in determining whether any compensation or consideration is to be paid or given in respect of the right to be granted by them and the amount thereof, if any, shall have regard to the full annual value of such right as well as to the fact that the right comprised in the lease was therein comprised and to the amount of any rent reserved by the lease in respect thereof.

The next Amendment standing in my name, in page 19, line 39, at the end, to insert "and to any other relevant circumstances," is consequential. I hope the Attorney-General will see that the fact that under the original lease the surface workings and the mines belonged to the same owner and the land belonged to the same lease, is no criterion when the land is being leased entirely by itself.

11.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: While I appreciate part of what my hon. Friend has said, I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept his Amendment. The words of Sub-section (4) instruct the Railway and Canal Commission to have regard to the rent, and my hon. Friend says that there may be a case in which the land is let at a very low rent because the royalties are high. In other words, because the owner of the surface and of the coal is getting royalties amounting to so much, he felt, taking into account that fact plus what he gets for the rent of the surface, that he is on the whole getting an advantage. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the increased royalty, which in itself decreases the rent obtainable for the surface, will be reflected in


the compensation he gets, and that will be the general practice throughout the country. For that reason it does not seem right to us to insert words which would prevent the giving of due effect to what must in these circumstances be fair, namely, compensation based on the amount of the royalty without taking into account the consideration which was accepted for the surface rights under the lease. We do not think it would result in fairness if we accepted the Amendment.

11.32 p.m.

Sir D. Reid: The Attorney-General has read more into my Amendment than I said. I did not say that the royalties would be high; I said that very often, in making a bargain, one would not haggle over the surface as long as the rest of the arrangements were satisfactory. The royalty, even when not excessive, has always been much the larger part of the receipts, and, even if a proposed lessee makes difficulties, there is comparatively little haggling over the rental for the surface. I have known that to happen again and again. The Attorney-General is putting forward a particular and exceptional case when he says that an owner will get more compensation because the royalties are high. The royalties are not necessarily high at all. I am simply asking that when the circumstances are changed so that the surface belongs to one owner while the mines belong to another owner, and the owner of the mines asks for compulsory rights over the surface, he should pay what the land is worth.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Clevedon Gas Company, which was presented on the 16th day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Darlington, which was presented on the 15th day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stony Stratford Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 15th day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Hampton Court Gas Company, which was presented on the 26th day of November and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

Orders of the Day — QUAIL PROTECTION BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.